36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 46
CONTENTS
Monday, December 8, 1997
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIVORCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-218. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIVORCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-218. Consideration resumed
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
1140
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1145
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1150
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Suspension of Sitting
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1200
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sitting resumed
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (NEWFOUNDLAND)
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1310
1315
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1330
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1335
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1340
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMENIAN EARTHQUAKE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1400
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CASTLE OF GOLD
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PIERRE PERREAULT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ST. JOHN AMBULANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEMP
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1405
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEADER OF THE BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1410
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | A HISTORY OF THE VOTE IN CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS SERVICE CENTRES
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
1415
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KYOTO
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC'S SOVEREIGNTY
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1440
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1445
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1450
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAX EVASION
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1455
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEASONAL WORKERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AID
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1500
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REPORT OF PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARIAN
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Environment and Sustainable Development
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1505
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-295. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-296. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-297. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1510
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-298. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-299. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-300. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1515
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (NEWFOUNDLAND)
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1530
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1545
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1600
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1605
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1610
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1625
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1640
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (NEWFOUNDLAND)
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1655
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (QUEBEC)
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1715
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (NEWFOUNDLAND)
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1720
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1725
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1740
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1745
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1800
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1815
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1820
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1835
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
1840
1845
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1850
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1855
1900
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1905
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1910
1915
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1920
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1925
1930
1935
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1940
1945
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1950
1955
2000
2005
2010
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
2015
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
2020
2025
2030
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
2035
2040
2045
2050
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2055
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
2100
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
2105
2110
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
2115
2120
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
2125
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
2130
2135
2140
2145
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2150
2155
2200
2205
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
2210
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
2215
2220
2225
2230
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
2235
![V](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
2240
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 46
![](/web/20061116183028im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, December 8, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-218, an act to amend the Divorce Act (marriage counselling
required before divorce granted), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House of
Commons today to speak about the Canadian family in regard to
Bill C-218, an act to require mandatory counselling prior to
granting a divorce.
There is a growing feeling that the Canadian family is in crisis
and that the enormous consequences affect each and every one of
us on a daily basis. The conflict between individual rights and
the collective interests of society has created a menacing
minefield of life in which our children must grow.
For many we have become a no fault society which not only
tolerates irresponsibility, but often condones it by resisting
preventive measures which may be viewed as encroaching on
individual rights.
Where rights exist, are there not also responsibilities? Should
there not be consequences if we fail or do wrong? Is it
acceptable to just continue to rationalize our problems by
blaming it on low self-esteem?
Canadians enjoy one of the most envied standards of living in
the world, however, we cannot ignore the fact that success does
not come without social pressures which may undermine the very
foundations of that success, which include the family.
While these statements may provoke defensive reactions, we must
resist simple, dismissive rationalizations to complex issues. We
must recognize and set aside our personal biases. We must be
open and responsive to the evidence of objective assessment. We
must not ignore the fundamental truth that healthy children make
strong families and, ultimately, a strong country.
1105
There is only one definition of family which all of us have in
common. It is a child with their biological mother and father.
It is a unique relationship which has no substitute and in that
context family is a fact, not an option.
Our society exists and sustains itself because of family. As
such, any threat to the security of the family unit must also be
considered as a serious threat to our social well-being. As
members of Parliament we encounter a broad range of issues, many
of which are relatively straightforward in terms of their
implications. Child poverty is an example. Invariably, however,
we find that resolving these implications are far more complex
when one considers all the relevant factors.
As such, we often find that a comprehensive solution with a
multiplicity of preventive and remedial approaches is necessary.
We also find that the root causes of problems are not absolute,
but rather they present risk factors affecting the occurrence of
problems.
For example, a poor family can have a healthy, well adjusted
child. Therefore, although poverty may not necessarily cause
poor outcomes of children, the probability is higher than for
well-off Canadians. As legislators we must therefore assess the
probabilities and likelihoods of problems occurring, analyse the
complexity of contributing factors and develop initiatives with
an appropriate balance between prevention and cure. This
strategy is particularly relevant in family issues.
Let's consider some of the problems facing the Canadian family.
Child poverty continues to be a major challenge which is
certainly complex. The starting point, I believe, should be to
admit that the term “child poverty” is a political term
intended to evoke sympathetic feelings. The fact is that child
poverty is family poverty and therefore solutions must
necessarily be delivered through the family.
Lone parent families represent only 14.5% of all families in
Canada but account for 46% of all children living in poverty. In
most of those instances, the poverty was manufactured or created
by the family breakdown. Two can live cheaper than one, but the
financial consequences of undoing that union are almost always
devastating to all concerned. In contrast, only 11.5% of
children in two-parent families live in poverty.
The growing incidence of child abuse, both physical and mental,
also continues to be of serious concern. If a child is hungry,
functionally illiterate, depressed, aggressive or unloved, is
that not the result of parental abuse? The majority of such
abuse occurs in dysfunctional or broken families.
Youth crime has angered many Canadians because of the escalating
seriousness of the kinds of offences. Tougher penalties are
often called for, but we cannot ignore the fact that 70% of young
offenders come from broken homes.
Physical, mental and social health outcomes of children have
also become an emerging issue. Research on brain development in
the formative years has discovered that the foundations for
rational thinking, problem solving and general reasoning are all
established by age one. It is generally accepted that the
quality of parenting during the first three years of infancy is
the most critical period in which you influence the long-term
outcome of children. Since the largest percentage of family
breakdowns occurs in the first five years, this fact represents a
serious threat to childhood outcomes.
Teen suicide has increased tenfold in the past decade and the
tragic reality is that we all must share the blame. Seventy-five
percent of teens who commit suicide come from broken homes. The
same can be said about drug, alcohol and substance abuse by our
youth.
To drop out of high school is to opt out of a chance for a
healthy, secure future. Our current drop-out rate in Canada is
approximately 30%. Drop-outs have an unemployment rate in excess
of 25% and represent over 50% of youth unemployment. High school
drop-outs are Canada's poor in waiting and over 70% of them come
from broken families.
Following the family breakdown with children, a whole host of
aggravating problems arise, including custody support and
visitation disputes. Since over 85% of court rulings award
custody to the mother, defaults on support payments are
devastating to women and their children.
Another serious problem flowing from the family breakdown is the
high incidence of domestic abuse and homicide. When the
relationship breaks down, it is not over. The fighting often
continues for years. According to justice department statistics,
17% of homicides in Canada are divorced persons and yet divorced
persons only represent 5.2% of our population.
Needless to say, when the family breaks down, bad things can and
do happen.
It reflects a social poverty, an erosion of values which also
contributes to the widening gap between rich and poor. The me
first social experiment has failed miserably and children are the
forgotten victims like so much road kill. Not all children of
divorce are doomed but in about every way we have to measure such
things, children are the victims of the divorce. They are the
ones that are hurt.
1110
Divorce may be common but the consequences thereof are not. The
findings of recent studies are very disturbing. Here are some
observations. Even when there is general agreement, divorce is
one of the most stressful events of life that hurts not only the
parents and children but also the grandparents, other relatives,
friends, neighbours and co-workers. Canada has one of the
highest divorce rates in the world, having increased tenfold
since the mid-1960s to over 75,000 per year. Forty-five per cent
of children will see their parents divorced before those children
reach their 18th birthday.
Divorce trials can cost over $100,000 and the court system has
literally become a forum for revenge. One in four children do
not live at home with their biological parents. Children of
divorce are three times more likely to experience both poverty
and insecurity. Forty-one per cent of children of lone parent
families experience some form of conduct disorder such as
anxiety, depression or aggressive behaviour. Children in lone
parent families are also twice as likely to repeat a grade or
have other problems in school. About 25% of divorces end up in
custody disputes. Children of broken families account for 70% of
young offenders, 75% of teen suicides and 80% of adolescents in
psychiatric care.
Bill C-218 calls for mandatory counselling prior to legal
granting of a divorce. For many it provokes the snap reaction
coined by Justice Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1967 that
the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. If the
issue solely impacts mutually consenting parties with no
consequential impacts on others, then I agree.
However, consider the issue of sexual orientation. The state
respects the rights of individuals to make choices. When it
became clear that such choices had become the primary cause of a
disease without a cure, which would result in a slow and painful
death, government had to act. The risk of long term suffering
and death was so certain it was like playing Russian roulette
with a bullet in virtually every chamber. The long term cost to
our health care system had also reached hundreds of millions
dollars and it is growing expeditiously. That is why we now have
so many governments sponsored programs, to caution those at risk,
to conduct research to find a cure, to help those who are dying
without hope and to safeguard others from contracting the
disease.
Undeniably these problems are rooted in the bedrooms of the
nation. Who in this place would deny that the government is
intervening. Who would deny that it is the right thing to do.
Based on the foregoing the criteria for action by government
should be two reasons. One, there is reason to believe that the
impacts affect others beyond the principal parties. Second, that
there is a high risk or threat to the lives, the health or the
fiscal and social well-being of Canadians. In my view, the issue
of family breakdown clearly meets the criteria for government
action. It is also a complex problem which requires a broad
range of approaches, including both preventative and remedial.
The purpose of Bill C-218 is not to promote reconciliation. I
repeat, not to promote reconciliation, although that is always an
option available to the couples. The purpose is first to ensure
that where children are involved a viable parenting plan is in
place. Second, it is to ensure that post-breakup acrimony is
mitigated.
Let me elaborate. There is little disagreement that where
children are involved the real victims of family breakdown are
those children. In many respects it can be considered a form of
child abuse in that the child is deprived of a stable, loving
family home with both mother and father. The priority therefore
should be to mitigate the negative impacts of breakdown. A
viable parenting plan is vital. Issues to be resolved include
custody arrangements, child support, visitation rights and other
financial settlement issues.
In a contested divorce both parents are represented by lawyers.
If we accept that children are the true victims of family
breakdown, then who is representing the interests of the
children? Counselling may provide that vital intervention that
will ensure that the interests of the children come first. Some
may suggest that counselling at a time of divorce is too late and
that approaches such as premarriage programs would be more
appropriate.
1115
The fact remains that most marriages face serious problems
sooner or later. Premarriage counselling is a helpful start but
you have to continue to work on the relationship virtually every
day. When we consider that almost 70% of divorced persons
remarry within five years, counselling will also play a useful
role in understanding what happened and why so that future
relationships will benefit from that experience.
When Bill C-218 was given first reading, Michael Harris of the
Sun newspaper chain wrote a story which ridiculed the bill,
decrying when it's over, it's over. In reality however one set
of problems is replaced by another and the fighting can go on for
years. The post breakup acrimony not only can lead to domestic
violence but the negative impact on children can be very damaging
and long lasting. Research has shown that children can be so
emotionally damaged by their parents' behaviour that they may
have difficulty making commitments in forming families
themselves.
In focusing on divorce, Bill C-218 deals with a small part of
the issue of family breakdown. According to Statistics Canada
there are over one million common law relationships in Canada.
Since they account for 60% of domestic violence, break down 50%
more than married couples and only last an average of five years,
the problem obviously is much larger and more complex than can be
addressed by this legislation alone.
For over two years the city of Edmonton has run a parenting
after divorce program which provides court ordered mandatory
counselling. The results have been so positive that the province
of Alberta is considering province wide implementation. As well
there are 14 U.S. states with similar programs and similar
results. The participants regularly admit that they did not
realize how much they were hurting their children. Marriage
mentoring, covenant marriages and mediation sessions are also
emerging programs motivated by similar concerns.
In conclusion, today I am calling on the government, members of
Parliament and all Canadians to take action. Specifically I ask
the Prime Minister and the cabinet to act on the recommendations
of the National Forum on Health by developing programs and
policies which are dedicated to protecting and investing in
children to strengthen the Canadian family.
Second, I am calling on all hon. members of Parliament to inform
themselves about the issues and to develop and promote their own
family related initiatives or legislation to bring national
attention to the risks facing the Canadian family.
Finally, I call on all Canadians to invest in the well-being of
our children to work harder on strengthening the Canadian family.
Since strong families make a strong country, we all have a vital
role to play.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you will find that there is
unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, not withstanding any standing order, with respect to
government business No. 6 on December 8, 1997, the House shall
continue to sit until no member wishes to speak, whereupon the
question shall be deemed to have been put and a division
requested and deferred to the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders on Tuesday, December 9, 1997, provided that,
during this debate, no dilatory motion nor quorum call shall be
received and provided that, if it is necessary for the purposes
of this order for the House to sit after the ordinary time of
adjournment on December 8, 1997, there shall be no proceedings
pursuant to Standing Order 38 on that day.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-218,
an act to amend the Divorce Act (marriage counselling required
before divorce granted), be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to thank our colleague from Mississauga South for bringing
this bill forward as well as for many of the comments he has put
on the record today.
It is unfortunate that this bill is not a votable bill. I think
there is a feeling and a thought moving through all caucuses in
this House that all private members' bills ought to be votable
bills so that we not only hear the concerns of private members as
expressed through their bills but also that we have a right to
vote and represent the views and concerns of our constituents on
these important matters brought forward by private members.
Those are my opening comments on this bill that the hon. member
has brought forward.
1120
I have looked at the bill and am wondering about its
constitutionality and its cost. The greatest pressure placed on
any family is economic pressure. If there are not enough dollars
to go around, it will weaken the other dynamics within a family
and lead to frustration, irritation, confrontation and eventual
disintegration of those emotions and feelings that keep a family
together. In looking at how we can strengthen the family let us
begin there first.
If this government wants to strengthen the family, let us look
at how we can do it economically. When 50¢ of every dollar that
the mother or father brings home goes to taxes in one way or
another, that is an enormous attack on the economic viability of
that family. What can we do in that regard? After we take money
from them, do we direct money back to those who are experiencing
difficulty, those living in poverty or below what we call the
poverty line?
We have a disaster in this country in this particular area. Not
only are we paying taxes at the highest rate in this country's
history, but we have also borrowed and spent $600 billion. Yet
all of these children are living in poverty. The hon. member is
absolutely correct when he states that we cannot talk about
children living in poverty. It is families and communities that
are living in poverty. We must address that and look at the
causes of it.
One of the single greatest contributing factors to family
breakdown is when there is not enough money to meet the family's
requirements at the end of each month, to pay the phone bill, the
power bill and perhaps the mortgage. This is what causes the
stress.
As far as poverty is concerned, I think many members of my age,
and I go back quite a ways, were born in poverty compared to what
we have today. I was born in a log house with a sod roof without
the benefit of a doctor or a nurse. Three of my eight brothers
were also born under those conditions. We lived in poverty. We
did not have power. We had an outside sewer system, if I can
call it that. We did not have central heating.
A few years ago I asked my mother, who is still living in
Saskatoon, what she saw as the greatest advancement over the
years. She thought for a moment and said central heating. I
asked her why she would say that because I thought it would be
something else. She said, “You do not know what it was like to
wake up in the middle of the night in a house frozen solid with
three babies in diapers and having to light a fire to heat the
frozen milk and to change diapers under those conditions”.
How we survived I really do not know. Do you want to talk about
poverty? You bet we lived in poverty but we made it. Every one
of my brothers and I made it. Why? Because of the love we had
from our mother and father even under those conditions. We were
looked after. They made great sacrifices and we knew they cared
for us.
We had a justice system hanging on the wall. We knew when we did
wrong but it never affected our sense of justice. Later we knew
that justice system hanging on the wall was there because it was
an expression of dad's love for his children. He wanted us to
stay away from the lake that had just frozen over because he did
not want us to fall through.
He did not want us playing with matches. He did not want us
doing all these things that could place our lives at risk. We
knew that and that was an inherent feeling.
1125
Yes we had great difficulty. But I do know this. My father
never paid personal income tax until I was 15 or 16 years old. I
remember the first time I saw him sitting at a table struggling
to fill out the new form called the personal income tax. When my
father took his grain or his cattle to market, he kept 100% of
that dollar he brought home and he put that into the family. It
kept us going. He was able to meet the economic requirements of
our family to a degree, although it was certainly nothing like we
enjoy today.
I remember seeing a television program where a single mother
living below what they call the poverty line was being
interviewed. I remember the television program showing the
conveniences they had. There was central heating. There was
television. There was a fridge. There were electric lights. If
we had that back in my day, we would have thought we were living
in heaven. To turn on a coloured television set, to have central
heating when we got up in the middle of the night and to go to an
indoor bathroom and not freeze and not have to get dressed to do
so would have been a wonderful thing for us.
Marital breakdown is a problem and I commend my colleague
opposite for bringing this bill forward and at least focusing the
attention of members of this House upon this very serious matter.
Let us look at the cause of marital breakdown. I say the number
one cause is actions by government at all three levels. That is
what weakens the economic stability of the family. When the
money runs out before the end of the month or before the next
paycheque, it is a serious matter.
We were getting letters from the letter deliverers and their
families asking us to do whatever we could to end the postal
strike. Why? Because they went two weeks without a paycheque.
How were they going to meet their commitments at the end of the
month just before Christmas? When we see these kinds of
initiatives by people in responsible positions further attacking
and weakening the economic stability of the family, certainly we
have reasons to look at what is happening along with the effect
of what is happening.
Marital breakdown in this country can be attributed to some of
the things that we as responsible people do, whether it is within
this House, within a union, or wherever it might be.
We see in Edmonton for goodness sake that the union and
management could not get together and save 800 jobs. What
happened? They went on strike and for reasons that are not all
that clear, they have lost their jobs because the company shut
down.
I commend the hon. member for bringing this issue forward. I
wish as I stated earlier that this were a votable matter so that
we as elected representatives of the people could express our
support for this bill by way of a vote. I would like it to go
before committee and have it examined in other areas. The area of
counselling, who will pay for that? Will the family have to pay
for that? It will be another drain on the economic resources of
the family.
There are all those questions I would like answered about the
bill but regardless, I still feel that this is an initiative that
is to be commended. It is directed at a very important area of
society, that is, what is happening to our families, and how we
can maintain the strength of the family and give our children the
greatest opportunity to receive love from a mother and a father
and keep that family together so that we have strong, healthy,
self-reliant children growing into adulthood.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in this House on Bill C-218, an Act to amend the
Divorce Act. The purpose of this bill is to introduce a
requirement for marriage counselling before a divorce is granted,
for the purpose of exploring the possibility of reconciliation.
1130
I must admit that I find it hard to speak out against virtue,
but I shall come back to that in greater detail in a few moments.
Let us start with a historical overview of the Divorce Act.
It is not all that long ago that women could get a divorce if they
could prove their husbands had committed incestuous adultery, rape,
sodomy, bestiality, bigamy or adultery combined with cruelty or
abandonment of the marital home.
Only in 1968, with the coming of the Divorce Act, were men and
women both enabled to cite these reasons for divorce.
The act still had its shortcomings, however. It was therefore
improved in 1985 in order to reflect the recommendations of the Law
Reform Commission of Canada's 1976 report on family law. The 1985
Divorce Act changed the recognized grounds to include breakdown of
a marriage. This new measure made the procedure simpler by
reducing the hostility with which the traditional adversarial
procedure was charged. It also made it easier to find more
constructive solutions to the differences that arise at the time of
a divorce.
As one can see, the Divorce Act has not stopped adjusting to
the new realities of society, but there is always room for
improvement or, better still, for transfer of powers to the
provinces. Nevertheless, a divorce is never an easy thing on the
human level. When people separate, a part of their lives goes up
in smoke.
So, legal proceedings must be as effective as possible.
Each of us knows someone who is divorced, and the difference
between someone who has gone through a bitter divorce and someone
who has reached an amicable settlement is palpable. Then there are
the effects on the immediate family, especially on the children,
who are the main victims of a difficult divorce.
After a spectacular leap in the 1980s, the divorce rate has
become relatively stable in the 1990s. The changes in 1985
permitting the failure of the marriage to be the sole grounds for
divorce prompted the spectacular leap, which led, in turn, to an
increase in the number of remarriages.
The latest report by Statistics Canada indicates that the
divorce rate has remained relatively stable in the 1990s.
Some find reassurance in the fact that, even though the risk of
divorce is higher since the 1970s, two marriages out of three
continue until the death of one of the spouses. This is reassuring
nevertheless.
In 1987, 96,200 divorces were granted. In 1995, there were
only 77,636. According to Statistics Canada, one marriage in 100
ended in 1995. It expects that 31 per cent of couples married in
1991 will divorce. If marriage counselling is really to be
introduced, there is no point waiting for divorce proceedings to do
something. Data indicate that the risk of divorce rises quickly in
the first years of the marriage reaching its peak in the fifth
year. In 1990, nearly four couples in ten divorced shortly after
their fifth anniversary.
With figures like these, our concern should be to have good divorce
legislation. In this respect, according to Professor Julien Payne, good
divorce legislation must achieve three main goals: first, to facilitate
the dissolution of marriages irredeemably doomed to failure by reducing
to a minimum the pain, humiliation and hardship; second, to promote a
fair distribution of the financial consequences of marriage breakdown;
and finally, to ensure that reasonable provisions are made for the
education of the children of the divorcing parents.
Family law is a jurisdiction that is shared between the provinces
and the federal government. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, while the
federal Parliament is responsible for divorce matters, legislative
powers regarding property and civil rights are assigned to the
provinces.
Clearly put, this means that the separation of non-married couples
is a matter of provincial legislation, and divorce a matter of federal
legislation.
How ridiculous. Why accept such overlap of jurisdictions when the entire
divorce procedure could be transferred to the provinces? The truth is
that the federal government simply has no place in that area of
responsibility. One could argue that, under subsection 92(13) concerning
property and civil rights, the provinces are the ones that should have
jurisdiction in the area of divorce.
In fact, Quebec is already prepared to take on this responsibility.
An entire section of the Civil Code is devoted to this subject but it
has not been implemented simply because we do not yet have jurisdiction.
But I am an optimist and I hope that the day will come when we do and
when the federal government will finally withdraw from this area.
1135
The bill brings me to the whole issue of family law and, more
particularly, family mediation.
Quebec has a comprehensive policy on free family mediation, and I
think the sponsor of this bill was inspired by it. However, our province
provides for much more than mere marriage counselling. In fact, members
of this House must recognize that Quebec has become an expert on family
issues.
If Canada wants to rely on our expertise, fine. It can only benefit
the rest of the country if the federal government adopts some of our
policies.
I simply want to point out that, if the federal government is going to
adopt Quebec's ideas on separation and apply them to divorce, it should
instead transfer the responsibility for divorce to the provinces and
make it an area of provincial jurisdiction.
In conclusion, it is high time Ottawa recognized Quebec's expertise
in family law and changed its approach accordingly.
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak about Bill C-218 which would amend the Divorce
Act to require spouses to attend marriage counselling before
divorce can be granted. It would provide that prior to granting a
divorce the court must satisfy itself that the spouses in the
proceedings have been advised by a prescribed marriage counsellor
with a view to assist them to achieve a reconciliation.
I will examine more closely the intent and effect of this
proposed bill. There is a lot of concern expressed these days
about the institution of marriage and the rising divorce rate.
There is no doubt that rapid social change in recent decades has
had an impact on family life. The Vanier Institute has reported
that the marriage rate has declined by 39% in Canada over the
last 25 years. Statistics also indicate that in 1995 the overall
divorce rate for Canada was 262 divorces per 100,000 population.
Parliamentarians must ask this important question. What should
divorce law and procedure seek to do to respond to these new
realities? As far as possible the law should support the
institution of marriage and require divorcing couples to meet
their responsibilities and obligations. Couples should be urged
to consider carefully the consequences and implications of ending
their marriage. However, there must be mechanisms to enable
people who are unhappily married to reorganize their legal
obligations when the marriage breaks down.
Some very basic questions must be asked about this bill. The
first is whether mandatory marriage counselling is something the
Government of Canada should be imposing on all couples who file
for divorce. There are some implications associated with
mandatory legal requirements. There is a danger these
requirements can become a real barrier to access to the legal
system. Reconciliation counselling is to be a requirement
imposed on everyone.
I believe there is a corresponding obligation to have
counselling services and programs in place at the local level to
operationalize this provision. This would be a very costly
obligation that would require the support and co-operation of all
the provinces and territories to ensure that affordable services
would be available nationally.
I am sure that many people agree marriage counselling can be a
good thing. It enables couples to work together to understand
and preserve their relationship. It can help couples to look at
their problems and to explore whether and how these problems can
be resolved. For some couples marriage counselling may be
useful.
However, like most types of counselling, its usefulness will be
directly related to the willingness of the parties involved to
participate in the process. To be successful both parties have
to enter the counselling in good faith. I am not aware of any
research that proves the effectiveness of counselling services in
the reduction of the divorce rate.
Practically I must seriously question how many divorces will be
prevented by forcing parties to counselling after one or both of
them has taken the serious step of deciding to commence the
divorce process. It is important to note there are already
references to reconciliation in the Divorce Act. Section 9(1)
imposes specific duties on every barrister, solicitor, lawyer or
advocate who undertakes to act on behalf of a spouse in a divorce
proceeding. These duties include drawing to the attention of
their clients the provisions of the act that have as their object
the reconciliation of spouses. They must discuss with their
clients the possibility of reconciliation and they must inform
their clients about marriage counselling or guidance facilities
that may be able to assist them in achieving a reconciliation.
1140
This is a duty imposed on all legal advisers, unless the
circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it would
clearly not be appropriate to do so. In other words, couples who
go to a lawyer to get a divorce are already made aware of
reconciliation counselling and urged to make use of it.
Mandatory marriage counselling to reconcile couples who already
have decided to divorce is not the right approach. It is also
not the only approach available. In my view, the key concern of
the government and the law should be to assist the children.
Everyone would agree that by far the most serious impact of
divorce is the effect it has on children. Research suggests that
it is not the divorce itself which results in the negative
consequences to the children but rather the parental conflict,
the bitterness and hostility of the parents which negatively
impacts on children's lives.
I suggest that the better approach would be to realistically
acknowledge that couples should be allowed to end the
relationship if they reach the point where it is not sensible to
continue. Rather than imposing marriage reconciliation attempts,
the government's focus should be on supporting parenting
education programs. These courses focus on providing information
about how children are affected by divorce in order to assist
divorcing parents to develop appropriate post-divorce parenting
arrangements for their children.
I understand that there are many parenting educational programs
already available. The seminars include material about the
effects of separation and divorce on parents and children. The
emphasis is on explaining the impact of parents' behaviour on
children at that very vulnerable point in their lives.
General legal information is also provided, information about
dispute resolution alternatives, parenting and scheduling
options. Also, information is available about the financial
responsibilities of both parents and about how to calculate child
support.
These courses are currently being financially supported by the
federal government through the recent child support initiative.
The reports are that they appear to be very successful.
Participants consistently give the programs high ratings on
evaluation. Family law lawyers, mediators and family counsellors
report that parents appear to be more conciliatory after taking
part in the course.
There are things that can be done to address the concerns that
Canadians have about divorce. However, I do not believe that
Bill C-218 is one of them.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-218 and I commend my colleague
opposite for bringing forth the idea that we need policies to
promote healthy families and, hopefully, happy families.
Bill C-218 is not the way to go about saving a marriage.
Marriage counselling imposed by law rather than by the conscious
decision of a mature couple will not work. It will increase the
cost of divorce because it is fair to assume that the government
will not allocate counselling resources.
It is also important to think about the cultural implications of
counselling which may not fit with the way first nations people
deal with their family problems. Also, in remote areas
counselling is not available. It is not easy to get any kind of
formal counselling in the city of Dawson. It is certainly not
available in Old Crow. There are informal support networks, but
there would not be counselling available to those people should
they be in the process of divorcing.
The other aspect is that nobody takes divorce lightly. They do
not approach it on a whim. There have usually been years of
struggle before a couple will separate and go through the process
of divorcing. Many couples separate and never go through a
formal divorce process.
There are many causes behind marriage breakdown. The economic
and social policies of governments are major factors. I would
certainly agree with my other hon. colleague that financial
stresses are incredibly damaging to families. If we want to
address that issue we would need to approach it from the aspect
of our high unemployment rate and try to make a difference there.
Cuts to the Canadian social safety net and the massive
restructuring of our economy have created unemployment and lower
living standards. Uncertainty, fear, declining incomes and
increasing disparities have been created which affect negatively
the well-being and psychological stability of our family unit.
The good thing about this debate is that it recognizes the
family unit and the place it has within our economy and our
society. It is essential that we recognize the unpaid work of
mothers and the unpaid work of fathers.
All the men I know who get up at 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning
to run hockey and soccer programs are the people who work very
hard to keep families strong.
1145
We need a multifaceted approach if we want to protect our
children. We have to make sure that maintenance money goes where
the child is. Whether that child is with a grandmother, an aunt,
a great aunt or someone else in the family, maintenance payments
should follow the child. They are for the benefit of the child.
Positive parenting programs should be put in place in time to
keep families together and to help people deal with the stress of
raising children.
I was home for 15 years but it was at a time when our culture
changed. Grandmothers, aunts and uncles were not around to help
me with raising four children. It was very stressful to do on my
own. In my mother's generation a whole neighbourhood of women
helped each other to look after their children. That does not
exist, which makes parenting very stressful. Full time parents
need breaks. We need to recognize that and address it in
policies dealing with families.
There would be less marriage breakdowns if the government
developed a more balanced policy to economic growth, employment
and development. It should not base everything on the concept
that the open market will look after families, because it will
not. That is not the market's concern. It is the concern of
governments and of cultures. We need a fair distribution of
wealth, better access to education and training, and better
perspectives for the family as a whole.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I thank all hon. members who took the opportunity to speak to
Bill C-218, an act to amend the Divorce Act to require mandatory
counselling prior to granting a divorce.
I have failed to properly communicate to members of Parliament
the intent of Bill C-218. Two members of Parliament stood to lay
out eloquent arguments why Bill C-218 was not the way to go to
save a marriage, to reconcile a marriage. Bill C-218 has
nothing to do with reconciling marriages, absolutely nothing. It
is clearly not the reason for counselling.
The bill has two purposes. The first is to make sure a viable
parenting plan is in place in which children are involved after
the divorce occurs, after the family breaks down. The second is
to deal with the issue of post-breakup acrimony, domestic
violence and homicide.
Throughout my speech I attempted to lay out some of the
consequences of family breakdown in Canada. I concluded through
my research that children were the real victims of divorce.
Although the member of the New Democratic Party suggested that
the bill was no way to reconcile a marriage, she went on to
suggest that we had to make sure child support payments go where
they should go. What better way than through an intervention by
counselling to ensure that every party understands what should
happen.
The member of the Reform Party raised an interesting issue. He
suggested that there might be a constitutional issue here. I
raise for the attention of all members that currently in Edmonton
the courts regularly order mandatory counselling to deal with
custody disputes. This program has been ongoing for two years.
It has been so successful that the province of Alberta and its
minister of justice have said he is hopeful it will become a
province-wide initiative.
1150
On the basis of what is already happening in Canada I can only
conclude that constitutional concerns are not relevant in this
case. However it raises a broader question about whether our
constitution is dedicated solely to individual rights or whether
there is room in that constitution for the rights of children who
cannot exercise their rights, who have no control over their
rights.
In divorce proceedings the mother has a lawyer, the father has a
lawyer, but who represents the interest of children? Divorce is
really a form of child abuse. Counselling would provide, as all
members have said, that vital intervention which would ensure the
interest of children in fact comes first.
The Reform member also mentioned votability. I too regret that.
However that is our process. Let us deal with it rather than
lament the fact.
On the issue of Quebec suggesting that this is provincial
jurisdiction, the fact remains that the marriage rate in Quebec
is lower than any other province. The rates of spousal abuse,
family breakdown and other problems associated with family
breakdown are higher in Quebec by a large factor over any other
province. I do not suggest in any way that the Quebec model
should somehow be followed.
I conclude my comments by thanking hon. members for putting
their views on the floor. It is very important to hear a broad
range of interventions. I thank all hon. members for their
thoughtful comments.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hour provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and this item
is dropped from the Order Paper.
The hon. member for Simcoe North on a point of order.
[English]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
move that the House suspend until 12 noon the commencement of
Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.52 a.m.)
1200
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed sitting at 12 a.m.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (NEWFOUNDLAND)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) moved:
WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides
that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made
by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the
Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of
the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative
assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an
amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be
made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor
General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with
the schedule hereto.
1. Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with
Canada set out in the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act is
repealed and the following substituted therefor:
“17. (1) In lieu of section ninety-three of the
Constitution Act, 1867, this Term shall apply in respect of
the Province of Newfoundland.
(2) 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.
(3) Religious observances shall be permitted in a
school where requested by parents.”
CITATION
2. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution
Amendment, year of proclamation (Newfoundland Act).
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to begin the debate on the
resolution to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with
Canada. Any amendment to our Constitution is an important issue.
Thanks to the hard work of those colleagues in the House and in the
Senate who examined the proposed amendment, the federal Parliament is in
a position to contribute to the reform of the school system of
Newfoundland and Labrador in a way that will maximize chances for
children of that province to get a good education. We should all be
proud of that.
The proposed amendment would replace the separate school system
currently in place in the province—which is an exclusively
denominational system—with a single public system, in which all
children, regardless of their religious faith, would attend the same
schools.
The amendment also states that the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador “shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to
a religious denomination” and shall permit “religious observances in a
school where requested by parents”.
Before continuing, I would like to congratulate the members of the
committee for their great work. They devoted a lot of time and energy on
a very complex social and moral constitutional matter. Through their
efforts, many citizens and groups from Newfoundland, Labrador and across
Canada had the opportunity to express their views on the amendment.
You will also see that the work of the committee has demonstrated
the desirability of the proposed amendment. Its proceedings further
confirmed the wide range of support for the amendment in Newfoundland
and Labrador and also provided evidence of reasonable support from
affected minorities.
In this respect, the government's initial point of view was confirmed.
Therefore, after having given a brief outline of the history of
this amendment and explained why it is necessary, I will limit my
observations to the main concerns raised during the committee hearings,
including whether term 17 as amended will be compatible with the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, and whether the proposed constitutional
amendment has adequate support from the affected minorities.
A few words on the background. To fully grasp the importance of the
proposed amendment, we must first of all consider the history of the
denominational school system in Newfoundland and Labrador and the
attempts that were made to reform it. The 1949 Terms of Union enshrined
a school system that is exclusively denominational. Many religious
groups had the right to establish, operate and manage their own public
schools.
Therefore Newfoundland was unique in Canada because there were no
non-denominational public schools.
The latest attempt to integrate the province's schools was in 1992
following the Williams Royal Commission. That commission recommended in
its final report a fully integrated school system. When discussions with
the churches to implement this recommendation failed, the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador attempted to reform its school system by
amending term 17. That amendment was proclaimed on April 21, 1997, and
represented a compromise which maintained the role of the churches in
education and which did not seek to eliminate all denominational
schools.
However, the attempt to implement the new term through a
legislative mechanism was successfully challenged in the Supreme Court
of Newfoundland.
Mr. Justice Leo Barry pointed out that the legal problems arose from the
Schools Act and not from the amendment itself, and granted to the
representatives of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches a
temporary injunction which completely blocked the school reform.
1205
In Newfoundland, this led to considerable confusion and much
uncertainty about the future structure of the school system. The
Newfoundland government was forced to conclude that it could not go
ahead with the compromise inherent in the amended Term 17.
Accordingly, Premier Tobin decided to again seek a mandate
from the public to amend Term 17. The purpose of the amendment now
before the House is to create a single, publicly funded school
system.
On October 27, the government introduced a resolution in the
House to amend Term 17. On November 5, it introduced a similar
resolution in the Senate.
Although the government feels that this amendment deserves our
support, we think that any mechanisms used to abolish the
constitutional rights of minorities should be fair and exhaustive.
This is why we created the special joint committee to study
the proposed amendment. The committee held broad public
consultations, during which it heard from 49 groups and
individuals. Last Friday, the committee reported to both Chambers
and indicated in a lengthy report that the consensus in
Newfoundland and Labrador is that the federal Parliament should
support the amendment. The committee reached this conclusion after
considering this complex issue from many angles and examining the
testimony.
[English]
The proposed amendment responds to Newfoundland's long-held
desire to reform and integrate its education system.
By completely removing the churches from the administration of
public education, the amendment gives the house of assembly the
power to fully manage and integrate the province's schools. This
will surely enhance students' educational opportunities by
eliminating the province's requirement to continue funding and
operating small unviable schools.
In his testimony before the special joint committee provincial
NDP leader Jack Harris welcomed the fact that the amendment would
“maximize available resources to provide the best education
possible to our children, regardless of the religious faith of
their parents”.
Grassroots parent groups such as Education First and the
Newfoundland and Labrador Home and School Federation told the
committee that by establishing a single education system the
amendment would curb or eliminate the need to bus children to
denominational schools in other communities.
Under the proposed amendment all children would have the right
to attend their own local school and, as the provincial teachers'
union was pleased to note, no school would have the right to hire
or fire teachers based on their religion.
However the amendment will reform and enhance education in a
manner that does not prohibit religious education or observances
that have been an important and historical element of the
province's school system. It is also important to note that the
amendment will not require children to take religion courses or
to participate in religious observances if the parents object.
The province's commitment to preserve the right to religion
courses and religious observances in public schools may help to
explain why the amendment received such an exceptionally high
degree of support in the referendum and the house of assembly.
The province made it clear from the start that religion courses
would not be specific to any particular denomination.
During the committee's deliberations this assessment was
confirmed by Ms. Gale Welsh from the Newfoundland and Labrador
department of justice. Ms. Welsh noted that the wording of the
referendum question and the proposed term resulted from a series
of events and consultations that have transpired over many years
in the province.
As the committee's report notes, the amendment's provisions for
religion courses and observances raised concerns among some
witnesses such as Ms. Anne Bayefsky, an expert in constitutional
law. Ms. Bayefsky and some other legal experts had questions
about the proposed term's compatibility with the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
1210
For example, they suggested that the proposed term 17, because
it permits religious observances in a school, may contravene the
charter's freedom of religion and equality rights guaranteed in
sections 2(a) and 15.
This argument is based on Ontario Court of Appeal decisions
ruling that observances such as the Lord's Prayer and nativity
scenes cannot be held in public schools, even if provisions are
made for opting out. Witnesses argued that these charter
concerns would also apply to provisions for religion courses set
out in subsection 2 of the proposed term 17, which requires the
Newfoundland legislature to provide for courses in religion that
are not specific to a religious denomination.
As I indicated to the committee, the government does not share
this view, first because it would be incorrect to conclude that
the Ontario Court of Appeal rulings, which have not been tested
in the Supreme Court of Canada, would necessarily apply to the
implementation and operation of the proposed term 17.
Legislative jurisdiction for education in Ontario is set out in
section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which, unlike the
proposed term, does not make explicit provisions for religion
courses and religious observances in public schools.
Second, if enacted, term 17 will become part of the Constitution
of Canada. Thus it will be shielded by the well established
principle that one part of the constitution, let's say the
charter, cannot be used to invalidate or repeal another part of
the constitution. As a result, the provisions in subsections 2
and 3 will enjoy a measure of charter immunity.
As I mentioned, subsection 2 deals with religion courses and
subsection 3 directs that “religious observances shall be
permitted in a school where requested by parents”.
The principle that one part of the constitution cannot
invalidate another is grounded in supreme court case law and was
clearly stated in connection with educational rights in the 1987
reference case on the amendment to Ontario's education act. On
that occasion the supreme court explicitly stated:
The role of the Charter is not envisaged in our jurisprudence as
providing for the automatic repeal of any provisions of the
Constitution of Canada, which includes all of the documents
enumerated in section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Section 52 establishes that term 17 as part of the Newfoundland
Act and any amendments to it are part of the Constitution of
Canada.
With respect to section 93 the court stated:
This legislative power in the province is not subject to
regulation by other parts of the Constitution in any way which
would be tantamount to its repeal.
This principle, which was reiterated in the Adler decision last
year, would apply with equal force to the proposed term 17.
Some have suggested that because this amendment of term 17 would
take effect after the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982, of
which the charter is a part, it would be subject to the charter
even though the original term 17 which predated the Constitution
Act, 1982, was not. This argument is not supported by the plain
language of the constitution.
Section 52, which determines what comprises the constitution,
makes no distinction between whether a part of the Constitution
has been enacted before or after 1982. Indeed, subsection
52(2)(c) clearly specifies that any amendment to an act which is
itself part of the constitution is also part of the constitution.
Once something is included it is as legitimate a part of the
constitution as any other, regardless of when it was adopted.
The issue of the proposed term's compatibility with rights set
out in the international covenant on civil and political rights
was discussed by various witnesses during the committee's public
hearings.
1215
In particular, some witnesses cited potential violations of the
right to freedom of religion under article 18.
The first three paragraphs of article 18 pertinent to freedom of
religion in the context of choosing and practising religion are
designed to protect individuals from religiously based
discrimination. There is nothing in proposed term 17 that would
hamper an individual's freedom to choose or to practice their
religion.
The fourth paragraph deals more directly with education. It
speaks to the liberty of parents “to ensure the religious and
moral education of their children in conformity with their own
convictions”. This liberty has never been interpreted in a
manner that would imply that the state is required to fund
denominational schools.
The committee's report notes that the Newfoundland and Labrador
Human Rights Association also concluded that proposed term 17 was
consistent with international declarations and the covenant.
Moreover, Ms. Anne Bayefsky added that the term's proposal to
remove public funding for denominational schools did not violate
rights to religious freedom set out in the covenant.
In addition, as I explained in my December 1 appearance before
the committee, the covenant's protection of freedom of religion
does not prohibit states from offering non-mandatory religion
courses.
The United Nations human rights committee, which is responsible
for administering the covenant, has published a general comment
on article 18. It says that article 18 permits religious
instruction, even instruction that is specific to one
denomination, in public schools. However, provision must be made
for non-discriminatory exemptions or alternatives where requested
by parents.
I note that proposed term 17 specifies that the government shall
provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a
religious denomination, but nowhere does it say that children
must attend them.
In addition, the Government of Newfoundland has indicated on
several occasions with the committee that children will not be
required to take religion courses or to participate in religious
observances if their parents object. Therefore I conclude and
maintain that the term is in compliance with the covenant.
Legal counsel for the Newfoundland government has made similar
arguments and the committee's report concluded that it is evident
that subsections 17(2) and 17(3) were carefully crafted to
respond to complex historical, political and legal criteria.
Regarding consent of the affected minorities, the Canadian
Constitution is the fundamental law of the country. As such, any
amendment of the Constitution should be undertaken with great
care. We must be even more prudent when we amend the Constitution
to revise or remove rights than we are when we add rights.
Changes affecting a minority deserve even greater prudence.
In interpreting whether there is sufficient support to move
ahead with this amendment of term 17, we are proceeding on the
principle that the level of support required for a significant
alteration of entrenched rights or freedoms is directly related
to the nature of the right or freedom in question.
It is critical in this assessment to consider what rights are
actually being affected. Let us be clear. In the case of term
17, we are not talking about the freedom of religion or freedom
of speech, which are fundamental freedoms explicitly protected as
such in the Canadian charter and many other international
covenants.
What we are facing in this case is not a fundamental right. We
are talking about an entitlement resulting from a uniquely
Canadian political agreement dating back to the time of
Newfoundland's union with Canada.
I must admit to some surprise at seeing the official opposition
state in its dissenting opinion that Parliament would somehow be
setting a precedent in drawing a distinction between such
fundamental rights as freedom of religion and the right to have
publicly funded denominational education.
We are setting no such precedent. A distinction already exists
both in law and in practice.
1220
There are many different rights and freedoms. The issue of what
is and what is not a fundamental right has been studied by courts
and international organizations, and some general consensus has
emerged. This consensus is reflected in international documents
such as the universal declaration of human rights adopted by the
United Nations, the European covenant of human rights and
equivalent measures adopted by various regional organizations
such as the Organizations of American States and the Organization
of African States.
Section 2 of the Canadian charter identifies what Canada has
recognized as fundamental freedoms as follows: freedom of
conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of the press and other media of
communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of
association.
While there are different categories of fundamental rights, even
in the Canadian charter, public funding of denominational
education is nowhere to be found in any scholarly analysis of the
definition of fundamental rights.
Canada's supreme court has ruled on the denominational
guarantees in section 93, similar to those of term 17. It
concluded in Adler v. Ontario, 1996: “As a child born of
historical exigency, section 93 does not represent a guarantee of
fundamental freedoms”. An earlier supreme court judgment said:
“While it may be rooted in notions of tolerance and diversity,
the exception in section 93 is not a blanket affirmation of
freedom of religion or freedom of conscience and should not be
construed as a charter human right or freedom”.
All this is not to imply that the denominational rights in
section 93 or term 17 are unimportant. This is by no means true.
But we must be clear about what is at stake here and we must
judge the required level of support in a way that is
proportionate to the affected right.
I emphasize that amending term 17 for Newfoundland sets no
precedent, legal or otherwise, for other provinces. The federal
Parliament must take into account the specific context of each
case before it. This principle lies at the heart of federalism
which is designed to ensure that policies of each province fit
that province's specific needs and realities.
The situation in Newfoundland is not the same as that in other
provinces. Thus, while upholding the principle that publicly
funded denominational education rights are not equivalent to the
fundamental freedom of religion, I affirm that any future
decisions by Parliament on this matter should be made according
to the specific context of the case in question.
As I have explained throughout this process, the Government of
Canada based its decision to proceed in this case on a number of
factors and considerations including the referendum results. Our
analysis of the results is not based on improbable statistical
assumptions but on what appears to have happened on polling day.
It indicates that in heavily Roman Catholic areas the proposal
was supported by the majority.
It also indicates that catholics constitute nearly 50% of the
population and the majority—25 out of 48 or 52%—of the
province's electoral districts, and that the proposal carried in
all but one.
Assessing the degree of support of the amendment among the small
Pentecostal minority was much more difficult. As I explained
during my second committee appearance, even Doctor Melvin
Regular, executive officer of the Pentecostal education
committee, readily admitted in his testimony that there is really
no way of knowing how the members of his community actually
voted.
The only thing we can know with any certainty is that in the
four electoral districts with the largest Pentecostal
populations, the amendment proposal carried with average
majorities of 60%.
1225
As I have said before, given this amendment's impact on minority
rights, a mere 50% plus one referendum majority would not have
been sufficient in measuring the degree of consensus among those
affected.
Furthermore, no majority on its own in a referendum can justify
the abolition of fundamental rights. However, this is not a case
of fundamental rights. The referendum did not result in a narrow
majority. It was an overwhelming majority of 73%, which provided
evidence of minority support.
Finally, the house of assembly voted unanimously to approve the
proposed amendment. This included all catholic and Pentecostal
members, as well as the leader of the opposition, Mr. Loyola
Sullivan, and the NDP leader, Mr. Jack Harris. In the one
democratic institution that speaks for all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians there is no division or uncertainty.
As the Government of Canada has argued and as the report of the
special joint committee has confirmed, it would be difficult to
justify a rejection of Newfoundland's proposal given the obvious
merits of the amendment and the strong and widespread support for
it.
Because minority rights are involved we have proceeded with all
due caution and consideration, but at the end of the day we
believe this is a positive change which is desired by the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that desire reflects a
reasonable degree of support among the affected religious
minorities.
I know that opponents of amending term 17 are sincere in raising
their heartfelt concerns about this reform. I also know that the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is sincere in wishing to
include the province's Roman Catholic and Pentecostal leaders in
developing a new religion curriculum and in setting up the new
school system.
The Government of Canada expects that all parties in
Newfoundland will act responsibly and fairly in implementing this
important reform.
I hope that the excellent work of the committee will reaffirm in
the minds of my colleagues that we should take the opportunity
provided to us with this proposal from Newfoundland to show that
the Constitution of Canada and its institutions can respond to
the needs of Canadians. I hope that together we will help to
ensure that the children of Newfoundland can get the best
education possible and that they will have true equality of
opportunity as we move into the 21st century.
I hope all members of the House will join me in voting yes to
this amendment.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise to address the question of the Newfoundland
schools amendment and in particular the motion before the House
to utilize section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to amend the
constitution. The purpose of this amendment is to replace the
present term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada
with a new term 17.
The effect of this amendment is to replace the denominational
school system of Newfoundland with a single public school system
where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation,
will attend the same schools. Stated another way, the effect of
this amendment is to extinguish the denominational rights
provided in the present term 17 and replace them with the
provisions and rights contained in the new term 17, namely the
provision of a single, publicly operated school system, the
provision for courses in religion not specific to a religious
denomination, and the rights of parents to request religious
observances in schools.
Before getting into the details I would like to express two
sentiments which will govern everything I have to say on this
subject. First I want to express, on behalf of the members of
the official opposition, our good will toward the people in the
province of Newfoundland and our sincere interest in their desire
to improve their educational system.
We all know the enormous difficulties that Newfoundland has
faced and the economic hardships that have been caused by the
collapse of the fishery, one of the basic primary industries of
that province.
1230
Alberta MPs like me can identify with this because our parents
lived through a period when our province was flat on its back due
to the collapse of its primary industry, agriculture, during the
great depression. We can also identify with the recent good news
from Newfoundland that after an enormous front end capital
investment and the application of great technical ingenuity, the
first oil is now flowing from Hibernia.
It was primarily oil and gas which transformed the economy of my
home province. I want to express the hope that the development
of this resource will mean the dawning of a new day for the
province of Newfoundland and a stream of revenue that will enable
it to finance the social services, including the educational
services, required by its people.
I also want to say that the members of the official opposition
fully respect Newfoundland's jurisdiction over education. We
know that education deals with Newfoundland's most precious
resource, the lives of its children. We therefore wish
Newfoundlanders well in whatever educational reforms they decide
to undertake and whatever the future may hold.
The second point is that as members of the federal Parliament,
we should define our principles and choose our positions
carefully when we are dealing with constitutional amendments.
Over the next number of years this Parliament could very well be
faced with major constitutional challenges, not just from the
continuing secession threat from Quebec, but demands that will
arise from various parts of the country for major changes in our
constitutional arrangements, changes affecting the division of
powers between the federal and provincial governments and the
balance between majority and minority rights.
Everything we do and say in this area of constitutional law can
be taken as political, if not a legal, precedent in future
situations. We should therefore look down the road as to the
precedent effect of anything we propose or adopt in relation to
the Newfoundland schools amendment.
When we define positions on majority and minority rights with
respect to this amendment, we should think through how those same
positions would relate to other situations where majority and
minority rights are constitutionally affected.
When we define positions and make statements about what
constitutes democratic consent for a constitutional proposal from
Newfoundland, we should think through how that same principle
would apply in other situations where we require democratic
consent. For example, I have noted with interest the language
used by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in providing
his definition of the principle of democratic consent. In his
presentation to the special joint committee on November 18, 1997
he said:
Given this amendment's impact on minority rights, a mere 50 plus
one referendum majority would not have been sufficient nor
adequate in measuring the degree of consensus among those
affected. But the referendum did not result in a narrow
majority: It was an overwhelming majority of 73%, which provided
evidence of minority support.
This is all well and good, but I note that it is a slightly
different conception of democratic consent from what was taken by
the government in 1996 when the previous Newfoundland school
amendment came before the House. The referendum that preceded
that amendment carried by only 54%, but on that occasion the
government considered that a big enough majority to satisfy the
requirement of democratic consent. The government will want to
strive for consistency on this point because inconsistency on the
principle of democratic consent will not go unnoticed by us or by
others.
I also noted with interest just a few minutes ago the
pronouncements of the minister on whether denominational or
confessional rights are fundamental rights under the law. It is
maintained by many that denominational or confessional rights are
not a fundamental right. This is primarily the view of the
secular and legalistic mind and the courts and the minister hold
and defend that view. But to the religious mind for those whom
matters of faith and conscience are supreme, confessional rights
are seen as an extension of freedom of conscience and freedom of
religion. Therefore they are in some way fundamental.
The minister argues that the right to confessional schools in
Quebec is not a fundamental right. Therefore, by logical
extension the right to linguistic schools in Quebec is not a
fundamental right. I would be very surprised if the majority of
Quebeckers do not regard the right to linguistic schools as a
fundamental extension of their right to freedom of speech and
expression.
1235
This matter of what is fundamental and what is not in its
broadest sense therefore very much depends on your orientation
and your deepest values.
Hon. members will forgive me if I take a moment, as the first
speaker for the official opposition on this motion, to briefly
sketch our understanding of the background behind the
constitutional amendment requested of us by the government of
Newfoundland.
If I sketch the background here—and I know this is very
familiar to those who have been following this issue but not as
familiar to those who have not in detail—then subsequent Reform
speakers will not need to repeat it and can deal directly with
more important details and matters of principle.
We also want to state our understanding so that other members,
especially the members from Newfoundland, can correct us if we
misunderstood or misinterpreted the background in any way.
I have read the background to term 17 provided by the minister
and by the special joint committee as to the origins of the
original term 17 and I find them deficient on one very important
point. It was a point which I was reminded of by former Premier
Wells when he was in town last week.
That point is that term 17 was included in the original terms of
Union primarily to meet a political, not a legal or a
constitutional requirement. When Newfoundlanders were debating
whether to join Canada in 1949, one of the principal arguments of
those opposed to the union was that union with Canada would
destroy Newfoundland's unique denominational educational school
system. To take that argument away, Joey Smallwood and others
proposed the original term 17 in the terms of union to provide a
constitutional guarantee of the continuance of that unique
educational system.
That original term 17 read as follows:
17(1) In lieu of Section 93 of the British North America Act,
1867, the following term shall apply in respect of the province
of Newfoundland: in and for the province of Newfoundland the
legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in
relation to education, but the legislature will not have
authority to make laws prejudicially affecting any right or
privilege with respect to denominational schools, common
(amalgamated) schools, or denominational colleges, that any class
or classes or persons have by law in Newfoundland at the date of
union and out of public funds of the province of Newfoundland
provided for education.
A) All such schools shall receive their share of such funds in
accordance with scales determined on a non-discriminatory basis
from time to time by the legislature for all schools then being
conducted under authority of the legislature; and
B) All such colleges shall receive their share of any grant from
time to time voted for all colleges then being conducted under
authority of the legislature, such grant being distributed on a
non-discriminatory basis.
The language used in this original term 17 is borrowed from
section 93 of the British North America Act of 1867 which said in
part:
In and for each province, the legislature may exclusively make
laws in relation to education, subject and according to the
following provisions:
1) nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right
or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any
class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
I am indebted to the minister and to others for pointing out
that section 93 itself does not apply to the province of
Newfoundland and, hence, no amendment to term 17 can strictly be
said to violate section 93. Term 17 in all its forms is said to
apply “in lieu of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.”
The original term 17 guaranteed the denominational school rights
of seven specific religious groups. In 1987 it was amended to
include another denomination, the Pentecostal Assemblies of
Newfoundland, in the denominational schools system.
As members will know, in 1992 after two years of study, the
Williams royal commission recommended the reorganization of the
school system in Newfoundland and Labrador to permit the
government to administer the system in a more efficient way. The
commission proposed the creation of a single interdenominational
school system encompassing the four separate denominational
systems then in operation.
In June 1995 the government of Newfoundland sought the approval
of the people to amend term 17 of the terms of union in order to
proceed with these restructuring plans. A referendum was held on
the following question: “Do you support revising term 17 in the
manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the
denomination educational system? Yes or no?” The result was
approved by 54.4% of those voting.
The proposed amendment of term 17 altered the rights to
denominational schools in Newfoundland but did not extinguish
them and endeavoured to reconcile them with the demands for a
more updated system. It was a compromise solution.
1240
On December 4, 1996, the House of Commons, of course, passed a
resolution to amend term 17 as proposed, and that revised term
17, the term currently in place reads as follows: For the
written record, I would like to have this current term 17
recorded in this place in Hansard, but to save the time of
the House I would seek the consent of the House to dispense from
actually reading the entire section and have it recorded in
Hansard as read.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Preston Manning:
Term 17—1995
17. In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act,
1867, the following shall apply in respect of the Province of
Newfoundland:
In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall
have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education
but
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), schools
established, maintained, and operated with public funds shall be
denominational schools, and any class having rights under this
Term as it read on January 1, 1995 shall continue to have the
right to provide for religious education, activities, and
observances for the children of that class in those schools, and
the group of classes that formed one integrated school system by
agreement in 1969 may exercise the same rights under this Term as
as a single class of persons;
(b) Subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly
applicable to all schools specifying conditions for the
establishment or continued operation of schools,
(i) Any class of persons referred to in paragraph (A) shall
have the right to have a publicly funded denominational school
established, maintained, and operated especially for that class,
and
(ii) The Legislature may approve the establishment, maintenance,
and operation of a publicly funded school, whether denominational
or non-denominational;
(c) Where a school is established, maintained, and operated
pursuant to subparagraph (b)(i), the class of persons referred to
in that subparagraph shall continue to have the right to provide
for religious education, activities, and observances and to
direct the teaching of aspects of the curriculum affecting
religious beliefs, student admission policy, and the assignment
and dismissal of teachers in that school;
(d) All schools referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) shall
receive their share of public funds in accordance with scales
determined on a non-discriminatory basis from time to time by the
Legislature; and
(e) If the classes of persons having rights under this term so
desire, they shall have the right to elect not less than two
thirds of the class members of a school board, and any class so
desiring shall have the right to elect the portion of that total
that is proportionate to the population of the class in the area
under the board's jurisdiction.
The Newfoundland House of Assembly then passed a new schools act
and a new education act which allowed the province to reduce the
number of school districts to 10 and to appoint
interdenominational school boards.
Twenty-seven denominational school boards were then dissolved
and 10 new interdenominational school boards assumed full
responsibility for the administration of the system. Sixty
schools province wide were identified for closure at the end of
the 1996-97 school year.
But in May 1997, and members will be familiar with this, the
Pentecostal Assemblies and representatives of the Roman Catholic
church initiated legal action to challenge the Newfoundland
legislation and to seek an injunction to stop boards from
implementing school designations and from closing certain
schools.
In their legal action, the plaintiffs did not challenge the
constitutionality of the amended term 17. Rather, they
challenged the way it had been put into practice under the
Newfoundland legislation.
The court subsequently granted the injunction on the grounds
that denominational rights could only be made subordinate to
rules set out in law or regulation which were uniform and which
were not so restrictive as to make exercise of the right
virtually impossible.
The judge found that there was a case to be argued that the
Minister of Education's guidelines gave so much discretion to the
school boards that the rules were not being applied uniformly and
that the directives regarding the amount the province would pay
for such costs as busing were in practice so constraining on the
right that they amounted to denying the denominations their
rights under the revised term.
The granting of this injunction brought the reform process to a
halt and disrupted the plans for the 1997-98 school year and it
provoked a political reaction rather than a legislative response
from the Government of Newfoundland.
On July 1, 1997, Premier Tobin announced that another referendum
would be held on September 2 to further revise term 17. It was
now proposed to extinguish denominational rights granted by the
term 17 amendment of 1995 and to replace them with the amendment
we have before us. That amendment, of course, reads:
17.(1) In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act,
1867, this section shall apply in respect of the Province of
Newfoundland.
(2) 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.
(3) Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where
requested by parents.
On September 2, Newfoundlanders voted in the second referendum
on the question: “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?”
On September 3, the Chief Electoral Officer announced the
results, that 73% of those who voted in the referendum had voted
yes to the question and 27% voted no.
In October of this year, on a motion by the Minister of
Inter-Governmental Affairs, this House established a Special
Joint Committee of the Senate and House to consider the amendment
which is before us. That committee has prepared its report
recommending support of the resolution.
Reform members of the committee filed a minority report raising
particular concerns with respect to the treatment of majority and
minority rights under the proposed amendment, but making no
specific recommendation other than that members voting freely on
this resolution take their concerns into account.
And so it is by this long, torturous route we come to today's
debate and a decision by Parliament on an issue with which
Newfoundlanders have been wrestling now for many many years.
Members of the House will know that the official opposition
believes that constitutional amendments should be subjected to
three great tests; the test of democratic consent, the test of
the rule of law, and the test of the Canadian national interest.
We contend that these tests are broad enough and deep enough to
handle any constitutional change, including those of the most
radical variety.
In other words these are the great principles that would guide a
Reform government in dealing with any constitutional change or
challenge from educational reform amendments to a secession
attempt.
1245
We are especially pleased to see that the government has also
adopted these three tests as a standard with the
intergovernmental affairs minister beginning his testimony before
the joint committee on November 18 with these words:
“Specifically, I will explain how the amendment conforms to the
legal requirements of the Constitution, has merit and is in the
interest of Newfoundland and Canadians, and enjoys substantial
democratic support, including a reasonable degree of support
among minorities”.
We should strive in our application of these three tests to be
consistent. These therefore are exactly the same tests which we
applied to the Quebec schools amendment, although when applied to
different facts and a different situation the application of
these tests may lead to different conclusions. Allow me then to
briefly discuss the application of these tests to the
Newfoundland schools amendment.
First, the test of democratic consent. Do a majority of the
citizens affected by the proposed constitutional amendment
approve of the amendment? On major amendments we believe that
this test should be conducted through a referendum. In the case
of the term 17 amendment before us, I am persuaded that the
amendment passes this democratic test. The principle behind it
was approved by 73% of those voting in a provincial referendum.
I know there are members who have questions about the manner in
which the Newfoundland referendum was conducted, the
appropriateness of the question asked, the time period and the
resources available to proponents on each side of the issue.
These are legitimate questions. But it seems to me that after
years and years of debate on this subject the people of
Newfoundland knew what they were voting on when they approved the
1995 term 17 proposal by a majority of 54% and that even more
knew what they were voting on in the second referendum which was
approved by a majority of 73%.
I am also persuaded that Newfoundlanders are aware that this
issue involves not only educational reforms but the difficult
subject of extinguishing, granting and balancing majority and
minority rights. I therefore believe that this Parliament should
be very careful in presuming that its judgment on any of these
matters is somehow superior to that of the people of
Newfoundland.
Second, we want to satisfy ourselves that the proposed
constitutional amendment and the amendment formula utilized
conform to the rule of law. It is apparent that term 17 applies
only to Newfoundland and therefore from a strictly legal
standpoint can be amended under the bilateral formula contained
in section 43. In fact it has already been amended twice under
that formula.
As a general principle I would prefer that provincial
governments submitting legally controversial amendments obtain a
court reference first, affirming the constitutionality of what is
proposed so that we do not run the risk of going through this
entire process only to have the results upset on constitutional
grounds.
I do acknowledge that our confidence in the legal opinions
provided to us by Premier Tobin in 1996 was shaken when the
injunction was granted by the Newfoundland Supreme Court to halt
the implementation of the reforms proposed under the Newfoundland
legislation. It is my understanding however that what led to the
court challenge was not the constitutionality or the legality of
the amendment but the way in which it was implemented under the
Newfoundland legislation. I am therefore prepared to acknowledge
that the amendment before us conforms to the rule of law.
That brings us then to the test of the Canadian national
interest. Majorities have an interest in minority rights. Each
of us may be a part of some majority in a particular situation
but each of us may also find ourselves if not at present then in
the future in a minority position. We may be part of an ethnic
majority but part of a religious minority. All of us therefore
have an interest in the protection of minority rights whether or
not we are a member of the particular minority in question.
With respect to education, the Constitution of Canada makes it
very clear that education is under provincial jurisdiction. But
the spirit and intent of section 93, much of which was imported
into the original term 17, is that governments assume political
responsibility for ensuring that powers are not exercised in a
way that prejudicially affects rights previously granted.
We are also aware that the actions of one province affecting
majority and minority rights in education may set important
precedents regarding educational rights of minorities and
majorities in other provinces.
We are not speaking here simply of legal precedents but also of
political precedents which are very important.
1250
It is with respect to the impact of the proposed Newfoundland
schools amendment on rights previously granted that I have
concerns. It is in fact in this area that our caucus has had its
greatest concerns. It is this aspect of the amendment which has
been the principal focus of our internal discussions.
So interested and concerned have we been on this matter that not
only have we endeavoured to absorb the testimony and the findings
of the special joint committee and the representations to the
ministers to that committee, but we also sponsored a special
debate of our own on this issue. The question debated was: Does
the Newfoundland schools amendment prejudicially affect rights
previously granted to persons desiring a religious orientation in
the education of their children?
To argue the yes side, we invited Joseph Hutchings, a partner in
the firm of Poole, Althouse and Associates of Cornerbrook who
handled the supreme court challenge of the Newfoundland Schools
Act resulting from the 1995 term 17 amendment. On the no side we
invited Clyde Wells of the law firm of O'Reilly, Noseworthy in
St. John's. Mr. Wells of course is the former premier of
Newfoundland and the premier to first consult the people of
Newfoundland on educational reform through a referendum.
It is not my intention to reproduce here the pros and cons of
the arguments raised by these two gentlemen, but I do want to
thank them both for contributing to our understanding of this
issue and to express my disappointment that other members of the
House who were invited to this debate did not take full advantage
of it.
I now come to the nub of the argument with respect to whether
the Newfoundland schools amendment passes the test of the
Canadian national interest, particularly with regard to its
impact on rights previously granted to classes of persons.
On the one hand, the original term 17 in 1949 specifically
entrenched denominational rights by specifying that the
legislature will not have authority to make laws prejudicially
affecting any right or privilege with respect to denominational
schools, common amalgamated schools or denominational colleges,
that any classes of persons have by law in Newfoundland at the
date of the union.
Term 17 as amended in 1995 also in clause (a) upheld
denominational rights by stating that:
Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), schools
established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be
denominational schools, and any class having rights under this
term as it read on January 1, 1995 shall continue to have the
right to provide for religious education, activities, and
observances for the children of that class in those schools.
If we then look at the term 17 currently before us, we find that
these denominational rights are extinguished and they are in
effect replaced by three things: one, the exclusive authority of
the province of Newfoundland to make laws in relation to
education, which presumably is intended to give expression to the
public desire in Newfoundland to exercise a right to have public
schools; two, the right to provide for courses in religion that
are not specific to a religious denomination; and three, the
right to religious observances in a school where requested by
parents.
Presumably if the people of Newfoundland voted so strongly in
favour of replacing denominational schools with a single public
school system, a significant majority must prefer the right to a
public education system over the right to maintain a
denominational school system.
There is little question in my mind that the two other rights
established by this amendment are of questionable value,
especially to parents desiring a religious orientation in the
education of their children.
The provisions for courses in religion that are not specific to
a religious denomination and the right to religious observances
in a school where requested by parents are hardly adequate
substitutes for the right “to provide for religious education,
activities and observances for children in denominational
schools” as guaranteed by the 1995 term 17 amendment.
As the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada pointed out in a brief
dated November 18, 1997 and prepared for the special joint
committee:
The provision of religious education classes and religious
observance is insufficient to accommodate the faith based
approach to education. This was recognized by the Supreme Court
of Canada in Tiny Separate School Trustees v. The King in which
it was stated:
The idea that the denominational school is to be differentiated
from the common school purely by the character of its religious
exercises or religious studies is erroneous.
Common and separate schools are based on fundamentally different
conceptions of education. Undenominational schools are based on
the idea that the separation of secular from religious education
is advantageous. Supporters of denominational schools, on the
other hand, maintain that religious instruction and influence
should always accompany secular training.
1255
With respect to the right to religious observances in a school
where requested by parents, there is a justifiable fear expressed
by some that this provision will be simply overridden by the
charter.
To counter balance this apparent weakening of rights to
religious based education are the following assurances given by
the Government of Newfoundland and in part by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
The minister assures us that parental rights are strengthened by
this amendment. In his presentation on December 1 to the
committee, he said in fact that parents have more power under the
proposed amendment than they ever did before. Parental rights, it
was argued, are strengthened: “They have the power to elect
school boards, to enrol their children in the school of their
choice, the the power to withdraw them from classes where there
is instruction that they do not wish for their children. They
have the right to request religious observances in school and the
right not to have their children forced to attend those
observances”.
He also assured us that part 3 of this amendment is immune to
charter challenge. I believe he repeated that again today. In
his December 1 presentation to the joint committee, he said: “If
enacted, term 17 will become part of the Constitution of Canada.
Thus it will be shielded by the well-established principle that
one part of the Constitution”—that is the charter—“cannot be
used to invalidate or repeal another. As a result, the
provisions in subsections (2) and (3) will enjoy a measure of
charter immunity”.
He then went on to give the supreme court references with
particular reference to the 1987 reference case on the amendment
to the Ontario Education Act which supports this conclusion:
“With respect to section 93, the court said that this
legislative power in the province is not subject to regulation by
other parts of the Constitution in any way which would be
tantamount to its repeal”.
Clearly, the value of the rights granted under this new term 17
therefore is very much dependent on the weight that
Newfoundlanders attach to these assurances given by the minister
in this Parliament and by the Government of Newfoundland in that
province.
The value of these rights is very much dependent on the way in
which the Government of Newfoundland fulfils its educational
reform obligations. The value of these rights is also very much
dependent upon the extent to which parents exercise them and the
manner in which the denominations endeavour to exercise their
influence under the new regime.
I believe that many Newfoundlanders are aware of these
considerations, that they have debated them longer and more
deeply than we in this House and took them into account in voting
on the referendum.
My personal concern about the impact of this amendment on rights
is substantial but not substantial enough to outweigh my desire
to respect the wishes of the people of Newfoundland as expressed
in their referendum. I will therefore with these reservations
vote in favour of the Newfoundland schools amendment. In saying
this, I fully appreciate there will be a free vote and that
colleagues in this House, including members of my own caucus,
will attach a different weighting to these principles and
conclusions with respect to democratic consent, the rule of law
and particularly the effect on rights, and that the weighting
they attach to these factors may well lead them to vote against
the amendment rather than in favour.
In conclusion, there are three other observations I would like
to make concerning this amendment, its effects on denominational
rights and the obligations of the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs and the Government of Newfoundland.
First of all, I want to make clear that the Newfoundland schools
amendment is fundamentally different from the Quebec schools
amendment and the application of our three tests leads to a
different conclusion in each case.
As much as I am sympathetic to the desire of Quebeckers to
reform their education system, I voted against that amendment
because it was not ratified by the people it affects through a
referendum and because it replaced constitutional guarantees of
rights previously granted with inferior guarantees contained in
provincial statutes that can easily be changed.
In the case of the Newfoundland schools amendment, the amendment
was ratified by a popular referendum, and while certain rights
are being extinguished and other rights are being granted, the
new rights granted are constitutionally guaranteed.
1300
I want to say a word to parents in Newfoundland whose principal
interest in this whole issue is securing a religious orientation
in the education of their children and who are likely to be
gravely disappointed if parliament approves the motion before us.
Many members of the House identify with their concerns and
aspirations for their children, and I am certainly one among
them.
My wife Sandra and I have five children, now aged 17 years to 29
years. Our children have attended over 20 different schools in
three different cities in Alberta, including protestant and
catholic public schools, protestant and catholic separate
schools, and a private denominational school.
As practising Christians we have preferred to have our children
educated in schools with a spiritual orientation where faith is
valued, even if we have sometimes opted out of the specific
religious instruction in a school. We have preferred schools
offering a faith oriented education to those schools where the
entire orientation is secular and either indifferent or hostile
to faith.
Having said that, I believe there are some hard lessons to be
learned from the denominational schools experience in
Newfoundland over the past number of years, which should guide in
dealing with the new regime and which are applicable to the rest
of us living in other jurisdictions where similar challenges will
be faced in the years ahead.
The first lesson is that if and when denominational groups have
partial or full control of an educational system, it is extremely
important that we fully champion freedom of conscience and
religious expression for all members of the community and not
just for those in a particular denomination. It is not necessary
to agree with another person's religious convictions in order to
uphold their right to hold and exercise those convictions.
The foundation of denominational educational rights, I maintain,
is freedom of conscience and religion; but if we only champion
the expression of that freedom for ourselves and our denomination
and not for all, the public will see our interest in
denominational education as a narrow sectarian interest and will
be unsupportive.
Moreover, when denominational groups are partially or wholly in
charge of an educational system, it would seem imperative that we
champion, expand and cultivate the rights of parents and the
accountability of those systems to parents. Denominational
systems that are run from the top down, with parents playing only
a peripheral advisory role and the real power resting in the
hands of denominational leaders, do not have good prospects for
surviving in the long run any more than top down political
regimes have a long term hope of surviving in the political
arena.
If the denominational groups in Newfoundland had been seen as
champions of freedom of conscience for all Newfoundlanders and
champions of parental rights, the removal of denominational
rights would have been seen as an interference with fundamental
rights, and there would have been much less public support for
that option.
The second lesson we can learn and that denominational interests
in other provinces can learn from the Newfoundland experience is
that by trying to keep too much we can lose much of what we had.
Obviously the term 17 provided for in the 1995 constitutional
amendment, which preserved denominational rights but endeavoured
to integrate them with other provincial concerns, would have been
preferable for parents desiring a religious orientation in the
education of their children to what would be provided under the
current term 17.
However it was denominational interests themselves that
challenged the implementation of the preferable term 17. This
challenge, while temporarily successful in the courts, in the
legal arena, provoked a political reaction in the form of the
second referendum. This challenge was obviously perceived
negatively by the public that voted more strongly in the second
referendum in favour of the government's plan and against any
recognition of denominational rights.
It is an ironic reminder of the truth of the New Testament
parable about the servant to whom our Lord gave one talent of
silver and who, for fear of losing it and in an attempt to
preserve it, buried it in the ground instead of using it to
multiply his resources. Alas, in the end that servant ended up
losing even that which he had.
1305
I assure those parents in Newfoundland desiring a religious
orientation for their children that this amendment, no matter how
it is disposed of, does not extinguish their rights and concerns
from the mind and conscience of members of Parliament like me.
I conclude by identifying the obligations which the passage of
this amendment by the federal parliament places on the Government
of Newfoundland.
With 27% of those voting in the last referendum being opposed to
the proposed educational reforms, it seems to me that the
Government of Newfoundland has a big job to do in making sure
that its educational reforms work to the advantage of all
Newfoundlanders.
The whole issue of how to reform educational systems without
prejudicially affecting rights previously granted, particularly
the rights of minority groups, would be immeasurably enhanced if
provincial educational reformers would include in their packages
a proviso granting parents the right to designate school taxes to
the school of their choice and an assurance that the approved
list of available schools would include as wide a range of
educational and value options as is practical in the
jurisdiction.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning: I appreciate the applause. It is
not the place of this parliament to say what educational reforms
should be pursued by any province. That is in the realm of
provincial jurisdiction. However I can say, as I believe many
other members on both sides of the House would say, that had that
proviso and that assurance been in the package of educational
reforms presented by the Government of Newfoundland, support for
this amendment would have been greater and more clear cut.
With that proviso and assurance the government would have been
on much stronger ground to argue that while rights previously
granted would be affected by the reforms, they would not be
prejudicially affected.
The Government of Newfoundland now has a special obligation to
make the more limited rights provided in this amendment
meaningful to those to whom they are most important, in
particular the right to have religious courses in
non-denominational schools and the right to religious
observances.
Since courses about religion are no a substitute for the embrace
and practice of religion, much rests on the meaningfulness of the
third right contained in this amendment, namely that religious
observances shall be permitted in the school where requested by
parents.
We have been assured by representatives of the Government of
Newfoundland and by the federal Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs that this provision is sufficiently strong to prevent
requests by parents for religious observances in Newfoundland
schools from being overruled by the charter of rights and
freedoms.
If this proves not to be the case, members of the House will
have grounds for declaring that we have been misled. More
important, a significant portion of the Newfoundland population
will have grounds for arguing that they have been misled and will
have grounds for expressing their disapproval in no uncertain
terms at the ballot box in future federal and provincial
elections.
I look forward to the representations of other members on this
important issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
take my turn in speaking on the motion before us, concerning
amendment of section 17 of the Constitution, which relates to the
Terms of Union of Newfoundland. This motion will enable the people
of Newfoundland to modify their education system as defined by
them. Since they initiated this change several years ago,
culminating in a referendum a few months ago, we shall today be
supporting this motion in order to allow Newfoundland to move ahead
with this as promptly as possible.
I am going to place this constitutional amendment in its
context.
Then I shall move on to speak of the work in committee and of the
one submission to the committee which left me confused, and still
does, that of the Government of Canada, by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. I must say that it opened the door to
an analysis in committee which moved the committee members to
question the level of support. We have heard the speech by the
leader of the Reform Party just now; Reform will support the
motion, after having taken the time to thoroughly analyze all of
their recriminations relating to the very basis, or the potential
scope, of the amendment. All of this was a result of what the
government's representative, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, had to say.
1310
We have to understand right off that term 17 makes specific
provision about Newfoundland's union with Canada. It accords
constitutional rights to various religious communities in
Newfoundland, which enabled them to manage their school system. In
1987, through the same constitutional amendment procedure, the
rights were extended to the Pentacostals. The result was a school
system that was run by religious denominations.
In practice what that means is that there are actually four
school systems in Newfoundland. There is the integrated system,
the Pentecostal system, the Roman Catholic system and the Seventh
Day Adventist system. The integrated system includes the Anglican,
Presbyterian and United churches and the Salvation Army. So this
is what we were faced with, and let us look at what it means in
practical terms.
In some regions in Newfoundland there is a single religious
community essentially. In such cases, there is little debate.
There are other places, such as urban areas and cities where there
are two or three secondary schools of different denominations
within a very small radius, and the children attend school
according to their religion. In some instances, there are schools
near them, and they have to go to a school that is further away,
because the school close by is not of their religious denomination.
There are teachers who cannot teach in certain schools because they do
not belong to the same religious group. There are certainly some very
able people who experienced difficulties because of this, and we have
all heard about the fact. Hiring was not based on one's qualifications
but on the religious group one belonged to.
Newfoundland is the only province that did not have a public
education system but rather a system belonging to different religious
denominations. How did the people challenge this system? They used
different means. In 1992, a royal commission submitted its report and
suggested that considerable changes should be made to Newfoundland's
school system. Later on, there were extensive negotiations between the
government and various denominations in order to find an arrangement to
reorganize the school system. The first choice was not to adopt directly
a constitutional amendment.
People sought to achieve a balance, to find a way to reorganize the
school system.
After lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations, in 1995, the
government came up with a compromise that was submitted to the
population. That referendum was approved by 54% of the population.
Later, there were court challenges and an injunction was requested. The
Government of Newfoundland closed some schools, reorganized its school
system, and parents supported by special interest groups succeeded in
obtaining an injunction.
The Government of Newfoundland did not choose to argue on the
substantive issue.
It decided then to redesign its proposal and to go to the people a
second time; another referendum was held on September 2, 1997, and this
time it received the support of 73% of the population. The government
therefore decided to refer to the people in order to move forward and to
avoid getting involved in a very lengthy legal battle, which would have
delayed implementation of a reform that people had wanted for a long
time. This was obvious from the level of support expressed by the people
of Newfoundland twice, during two referenda.
What was the question asked at that referendum? I will read it to
you.
The question was: “Do you support the establishment of a single
school system where all children, whatever their religion or religious
affiliation, attend the same schools while having access to courses in
religion and to religious observances?” So the objective was not to
throw religion out altogether nor to eliminate courses in religion, but
instead to ensure that the school system would be managed by the
government. It is the Government of Newfoundland that will make the
decisions on the structure that will be implemented, on parent
committees and everything else, so that from now on it will be a public
system and no longer a denominational system.
1315
The question was basically whether the people wanted the
denominational system to be maintained or instead wanted a public
system. This debate gave the people an opportunity to express their
views and, on September 2, they made a decision.
On September 5, the Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland
unanimously passed a motion to go ahead with the constitutional
amendment requested. I will come back to this because the Pentecostal
members' support can be interpreted a number of ways; the Pentecostal
community is probably one of the minorities whose support for the
proposal was weakest, at least as far as we could see in committee. I
will come back to this later.
Now, I move to the Bloc's support. We expressed support for this
proposal in this House from the outset, even before it was referred to
committee. Why? We thought it was quite obvious. It concerns education,
which is under provincial jurisdiction. Support was expressed as part of
a democratic process, and the people of Newfoundland decided what they
wanted to do.
In that sense, it seems to me that the role of the House of Commons
is to adopt this motion, unanimously I hope, thereby respecting the wish
of Newfoundlanders. The government saw fit to establish a committee to
study it and so on. We did not think this was a necessary step that
would add anything. As it turns out, we did not hear much that we had
not heard before. There is always a risk with holding hearings: people
want to start the debate all over again. Opponents made their case again
hoping that Parliament would finally agree with them. There was a
campaign, there were opportunities for people to express their views.
In the chronology of events, I forgot to mention that there was
also a provincial election held in Newfoundland. The government of the
day never made any secret about its intentions and was re-elected. It
too went through the democratic process. Granted, this was not the only
issue in the provincial election, but still those opposing the proposal
had numerous opportunities to come forward.
As for the conclusion reached by the committee, I am very pleased
to see that the committee did not venture beyond making a recommendation
to the House of Commons and to the other place to adopt the resolution.
It did not get into the kind of overly political analysis the Reformers
and perhaps the minister would have hoped for regarding every
conceivable potential implication on other aspects of federal-provincial
and constitutional relations.
I know some were tempted to do so, but the committee's level of
consensus might have been lower, since there were already dissenting
opinions from Conservative senators. The process might be delayed
somewhat by the Senate, which would be unfortunate. Still, while we may
have to wait for the Senate once again, it will merely slow down the
process.
I told you earlier about the Bloc's support and about potential
hurdles; the Senate is one of them. Another one is the possibility of
legal challenges. Witnesses, and also some people during the last
campaign in Newfoundland, mentioned the possibility that certain aspects
might be challenged in court. People can do it regarding all sorts of
issues. There is a legal system in place for this, but it does not
justify not going ahead with what is proposed to us.
There is a clear distinction to be made here. The constitutional
amendment is one thing, but it will up to the Government of Newfoundland
to decide how it will organize its school system. We cannot say, as some
Conservative senators—among others—might be tempted to do, that
there may be challenges, that we have to be careful, that we should
draft the amendment differently, look for alternatives, etc., because,
in the end, it will all depend on how Newfoundland implements its school
reform. Of course, if there is non-compliance with the Constitution or
the charter, then it is a different matter. But, as the minister
explained, the constitutional amendment as such will not contradict any
provision in these acts. Similarly, the charter will not contradict what
is in the Constitution.
However, the part of the government's statement that concerns me
and that opened the door to a debate is that of the support of most of
the minorities or of support by minorities.
1320
There are a number of denominational groups involved. When
the level of support is examined riding by riding, it seems fairly
clear that it was very high everywhere, without always being a
majority. While it received the support of a good number of
people, that support was visibly lower in areas where there were
more Pentecostals. Many people came and presented all sorts of
arguments, but there is no way of knowing exactly how they voted.
That having been said, every indication is that opposition in the
Pentecostal community is quite strong.
Once the criterion is reasonable support from the minorities,
we have something that is completely subjective.
Earlier in the House, the minister came back to this as well,
saying that the level of support from the minorities affected
depends on the nature of the right involved. That is subjective.
There are two things about this that are subjective. He naturally
has his definition, based on sources, of what constitutes a
fundamental right and what does not.
In this regard, however, I must point out to him that his view
differed widely from that of his new constitutional colleague, the
Leader of the Reform Party. The two do not share the same view of
what constitutes a fundamental right. He says that, when there is
freedom of religion, then it follows that running the school system
on a religious basis is an extension of the fundamental right of
freedom of expression and of religion. But there is a difference
of opinion. And there may be many.
There is therefore a view of what constitutes a fundamental
freedom and what does not.
Even if there were a definition right now, that does not mean it
would not change with time. When the Newfoundland issue is
approached with a criterion such as reasonable support from the
minorities concerned, the door is thrown wide open to debate. This
does not strike me as a very desirable or good approach. Nor was
it the approach taken by the Government of Newfoundland.
For that government, it is a choice between a public and a
denominational school system, and 73% of voters opted for a public
system. I think this is where the greater logic lies. If one
starts with the premise that the support of minorities is required,
there is no logic in proceeding if support from one of the
minorities is missing. This is why Reformers, Conservatives and
all opponents from Newfoundland have such serious reservations.
In the rest of the brief, there were a few other aspects more
or less along the same lines. One sentence stated that, according
to the Government of Canada, the proposed amendment was given a
favourable reception by an appreciable majority of the population,
and enjoys reasonable support by the minorities directly affected.
We shall return later to the words appreciable majority, and the
notion of reasonable support by the minorities directly affected.
The statement is then made that the resolution was approved
unanimously by the Legislative Assembly. Here again, prudence is
advisable. Three days after the referendum, four Pentecostal MLAs
voted unanimously in favour of the amendment proposed to the
Legislative Assembly. The fact that some Pentecostal MLAs
supported the motion after the referendum cannot, by extension, be
taken to mean that the Pentecostal community did the same.
At that time, the members of the legislature had their own reasons,
and they needed to take their political affiliation into
consideration, how the rest of their political party was acting,
and so on.
They also represented ridings, and had to take the opinion of
their constituents into account. If the majority of their
constituents had been in favour of the amendment suggested, but
that the Pentecostals were not the majority in a riding—they are
one group of the population, but not sufficient in numbers to form
a majority in the riding—it could very well happen, therefore,
that the majority of Pentecostals voted against, but overall the
riding was in favour.
The MLA therefore finds himself in a situation where he is forced
to ask himself how he can best represent his constituents. He has
his own personal convictions, but he is also there to represent his
riding. We must therefore take care not to generalize or to divert
attention from the fact that there was a considerable degree of
dissatisfaction in the Pentecostal community.
1325
This is the sort of approach we have to take when we want to
look at the level of minority support, when we want to break down
the vote or look at support for this referendum by denomination.
And it gets more complicated.
The minister had a lot of things besides the situation in
Newfoundland in his head when he came to testify.
His arrival in politics was motivated essentially by, as he said
last night, the Quebec question, and I am sure he had that in mind
when he wrote the following: “Given the effect of this amendment on
minority rights, a simple majority of 50% plus one in the
referendum would be neither sufficient nor satisfactory”. It is
strange having the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make such
a statement before the committee studying Newfoundland's school
system. I will refresh your memory. Barely two years ago, the
House of Commons passed on two occasions, because the Senate took
a very long time on the constitutional amendment, a constitutional
amendment with respect to Newfoundland, which had just held a
referendum that had received the support of 54% of the population.
Although they are now saying that a simple majority of 50%
plus one is not enough, 54% was considered to be enough at the
time. So the federal government is faced with a problem of logic.
I understand their great concern, like that of their constitutional
colleagues in the Reform Party, over the possible impact of
recognizing 50% plus one.
So, today they are saying “Phew. A good thing the second one
passed in 1973. Now we can include it in our presentation. We can
include it now, which we could not have done the first time.”
Time is passing, and I would have liked to talk to you about
a number of other things. In conclusion, you have to be careful
when you try to mix up two things, as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs is doing in this case.
He has opened the door to allow many people to express their opposition
and to avoid considering the real issue, which is that the people of
Newfoundland indicated what they wanted and did that through a
democratic process.
And I must mention in the minute and a half that I have remaining
that the people who were against the proposal came up with arguments
such as “The question was not clear.” It seems to me that I have heard
that somewhere else before. Living in an area where the people were
consulted on several occasions, we have often heard this. When the level
of support was not as expected, for example in the case of the
federalists in Quebec, when 49.5% of the people voted yes, they said
“But they did not understand.” The people in Newfoundland reacted in
very much the same way.
I know that we will be able to come back to this, and I will
conclude by saying that we will support and respect the will of the
people of Newfoundland, with the hope that the members of the other
parties will show the same willingness when the case of Quebec will be
considered.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am happy that the leader of the Reform Party, the leader of the official
opposition, and also the Bloc Quebecois agree with the government to
support the amendment.
I would like to comment on what the hon. member said on three
points. What the Government of Canada is saying is that there should
always be a balance between the extent of a change and the extent of the
support it receives. In the case of a relatively moderate change, as
with the first referendum on term 17, the majority need not be as great
as in the case of a much more extensive change affecting minorities, as
we have here. So these are the things that should be balanced.
Second, I have invented nothing as Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. The issue of minorities has always been on the table.
It is being raised in Newfoundland, it was raised during the first
amendment and it is being raised with the second amendment.
Members and senators voted against the first amendment. The Senate
itself voted against it because of this issue of minority rights. The
Government of Newfoundland, in the brief it presented on November 18,
1997, deals with the issue of majorities and minorities, of the rights
of minorities and also of the support of minorities. This is an issue
that is unavoidable. If it had been clearly demonstrated to us that the
Pentecostal Church was for the amendment, there would have been much
less debate and difficulty. If it had been clearly demonstrated to us
that they rejected it outright, there would have been much more debate
and greater difficulties.
So this issue is before us. And since it is my role to ask a
question to the member, I ask him this: Does he believe that democracy
is tyranny by the majority?
1330
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say that he was
anxious to get back to teaching. We see today that he already has
a question prepared for asking his students some day. Moreover, my
wish for him is that he can get back to where he says his strongest
preference lies as soon as possible.
In my opinion, the fundamental rule in a democratic society is
the following: respecting the wish of the majority. I would like
to go further with this. I recall hearing the minister open a
debate with the question “What, for example, would happen if New
Brunswick held a referendum calling for abolition of the language
rights of francophones?”
He said he would padlock the doors of Parliament, that he would be
in the forefront of those opposing it, and that the government
would never consider such a thing. Perhaps he could do so. Yet
the fact remains that there would be a major problem if one
province had such a desire, one that had been expressed and
measured in a democratic exercise.
I am convinced, if the opposite position were taken, if a
referendum were held in Quebec on anglophone rights—regardless of
context, regardless of whether or not we had a Bill 101 in favour
of the development of French—there would be a massive vote by
Quebeckers in favour of the language rights of anglophones.
Moreover, that was included in what was submitted to the population
last time.
If the majority wants to oppress its minority, which is what
he says this comes down to really, that will happen regardless. Do
you sincerely believe that, if they express this in a democratic
exercise, they will not express it in their everyday lives?
So there is another kind of problem, one of tolerance, which
involves significant problems. Respecting the rule of the majority
therefore, in my point of view, does not lead us to a dangerous
situation.
I am convinced that he will want to continue the debate and I
am prepared to continue it at any point with him, on the basis that
the majority decision is a desire clearly expressed by the people,
and at that point a government has a duty to take this into
consideration and to act responsibly in such situations.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, well I hesitate to continue
the debate because it is going round in circles. Almost all texts
on democracy and almost every democracy I know of have
constitutions and charters for the very purpose of protecting
minorities.
It often happens that referendums, even when there is a
majority, are not followed by legislation, because the majority
often appears uncertain about the change contemplated. When the
change selected involves not adding a right, but rather taking one
away, and the right affects certain categories of citizens more
than others, extreme care must be taken and questions asked in
terms of the majority and the minority.
I agree with the hon. member that we must not lean too far in
the opposite direction and give the minority tyranny. A balance
must be struck according to the importance of the right at issue
and the support that is measurable.
I repeat what I said. Should New Brunswick ever approach
Parliament to abolish official bilingualism, which is recognized in
the Constitution, without the support of the francophone minority,
the amendment would have no chance of success, whatever the
majority in the New Brunswick legislature or among the anglophone
population of New Brunswick. It is a question of minority rights.
Things must be viewed this way, and I am sure that if the hon.
member gives it some thought he will agree.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time we
disagree, but I would like to give him again the example of anglophones
in Quebec and of linguistic rights.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: He is adding another right, it is not the
same.
Mr. Pierre Brien: No, no. The removal of rights in a referendum
exercise is being discussed. I am sure that Quebeckers would be against
removing what the Quebec anglophone community has now. I am sure it is
the same thing in the New Brunswick. So I think these things are
completely hypothetical because the values people have—
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: This an academic debate.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, it is a very academic debate. But let us
come back to the case of Newfoundland.
If we follow the minister's logic, we should be against this amendment
because obviously members of the Pentecostal Church are opposed to this.
The issue to be resolved is whether this is a fundamental right or
a less than fundamental right, and whether we can withdraw a right from
a minority if it is a bit less fundamental than what we consider to be
fundamental. But where can all this lead us?
I can understand the people who are concerned that the minister is
making a judgment on the definition of what is fundamental by stating
that appropriate support is required from the minorities, by trying to
state what the debate should be in Newfoundland. I am sorry, but when he
quoted the minister from Newfoundland, when he was asked the question
directly, he always said that as far as he was concerned, 73% of the
people had voted for the project.
He never started with 32, 38, 27, with assumptions and everything else.
He said that according to him the issue was the following: a public
system or a denominational system, and the majority had expressed
itself.
1335
I invite the minister to be a bit more straightforward when dealing
with the cases he is referring to, to be specific in his comments and to
be careful not to be always obsessed with his idea of meeting the
commitment that he had already taken before the referendum. We must
remember that it is he who said that he wanted to make Quebec suffer. We
can see by what he is doing today that he is applying what he said at
that time.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, since we will be working together
for the next two days, I will not respond to the slander that we have
just heard.
However, I ask the member to show us if he can any international
legislation that recognizes as a fundamental right the control of
publicly funded schools by churches. I would like him to show us any
international charter or any charter in a democracy that does not
include the freedom of worship as a fundamental right.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, that is the argument that the
minister wants to bring into this debate. We have never thought along
these lines. He should be speaking with his colleague from the Reform
Party, his new constitutional colleague with whom he is working hand in
hand. I invite him to have good discussions with him.
Earlier, I heard the leader of the Reform Party say that, according
to them, this was an extension of a fundamental right. According to me,
that is not the issue. The issue is the choice between a public system
and a denominational system, and the people chose a public system. They
have chosen it with a majority, they have expressed this in a consensus
during two referendums, in a report by a commission, in provincial
elections, and with everything else. According to me, this should be
sufficient, and it is based on such support that, hopefully, a
resolution should be unanimously adopted by this House to respect the
will expressed by the people of Newfoundland.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
stand in support of the recommendation regarding the proposed
amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with
Canada, a constitutional amendment, a change to the very
foundation of the house of Canada, a house we in this Chamber
must build stronger and more magnificent every day.
The special joint committee has studied the question with great
care on behalf of Parliament. Today we have the result of that
study in the form of the recommendation before us. The committee
recommends that we make the changes to term 17 requested by the
Newfoundland House of Assembly.
Before I discuss the recommendation I want to say that it was a
privilege and an honour to have had the opportunity to be part of
the special joint committee considering this issue for the people
of Newfoundland and indeed Canada. Coming from Cape Breton I can
assure the House that the people of my island and the province of
Newfoundland have more in common than geography. Our past and
present bind us together in ways which have forged a warm
understanding between us. This sentiment accompanied me
throughout my committee duties and I wish to say it was a
pleasure to serve the people of Newfoundland in this manner.
I would also like to make the point of saying that Canadians
should realize that churches have played an instrumental role in
the development of this country through an education system which
without them would have been feeble and non-existent in many
parts of Canada at crucial times in our history. This point is
irrefutable and the country will always owe the churches of this
country a debt of thanks.
At the time of Confederation the Constitution Act, 1867 gave
provinces exclusive jurisdiction over education with two
exceptions: the protection of denomination rights existing in law
at the time of Confederation and a federal remedial role in
protecting denominational education rights.
As each of the next five provinces joined Canada its terms of
union either adopted or adapted this approach to education.
However, different circumstances in various provinces resulted in
only four provinces with denominational education by the time
Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949.
The original term 17 guaranteed a system of education based on
religious denomination in that province. Publicly funded schools
were operated by several denominations. A non-denominational
public school system similar to the systems in other provinces
did not exist in Newfoundland.
1340
In 1969 the Anglican, Presbyterian, Salvation Army and United
Churches joined to establish one integrated system of schools. A
constitutional amendment in 1987 added the Pentecostal Assemblies
of Newfoundland as a class with denominational education rights
under the term. By 1987 there were four separate denominational
school systems in Newfoundland, integrated, Pentecostal, Roman
Catholic and Seventh-Day Adventist. These denominations made
decisions with respect to the appointment of school board
members, the location of schools, the certification and selection
of teachers and all other decisions required for the
administration of education.
In 1990 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed
the Williams royal commission to study the delivery of
educational programs. The commission's final report called for
fundamental and substantial reforms of the province's education
system. It recommended significant changes to the powers
exercised by the denominations with respect to the administration
of schools.
Chairman Dr. Len Williams has said that a scarcity of resources
kept Newfoundland from establishing a non-denominational school
system parallel to the denominational system. For three years
following the reports released in 1992, the Government of
Newfoundland sought unsuccessfully to reach agreement with the
denominations to restructure the school system. Finally, it
drafted a new education model for the province that would retain
the denominational character of the current system but which
would provide the provincial legislature with additional powers
to organize and administer education in the province.
The new model was approved by referendum and passed by
resolution in the house of assembly. The house of assembly
requested that Parliament change term 17 to accommodate the new
education model. This was done in 1996. The term, as amended in
1996, ensures that all publicly funded schools are denominational
and creates two types of schools, interdenominational schools and
schools operated for children of a single denomination.
A conflict arose, however. As the government attempted to
implement the new model, it felt that the school board should
optimize student educational opportunity while recognizing the
constitutional rights of certain denominations to have separate
denominational schools. Some denominations felt that the right
to uni-denominational schools took precedence over educational
opportunity.
The catholic and Pentecostal denominations received an
injunction from the Newfoundland supreme court, which agreed that
implementing the new model was a violation of their
constitutionally guaranteed rights. The court ruled that the
1996 amendment gives precedence to uni-denominational rights over
maximizing educational opportunities.
Earlier this year the Government of Newfoundland complied with
the ruling and proposed a rewording of term 17, which was
approved by referendum with 73% of voters in favour. The
Newfoundland House of Assembly then voted unanimously to approve
a resolution in favour of the rewording of term 17. The house of
assembly has asked Parliament to change term 17 to reflect the
new wording. The special joint committee has studied the issue
and its report and recommendation are before the House today.
It is clear that complex issues arise from our consideration of
the request from the Newfoundland House of Assembly. There are
many and often conflicting questions surrounding religion,
constitutional rights and responsibility and even the quality of
democracy in these events which I have just discussed.
It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to answer these
questions well. Nothing less than the aspirations of the people
of Newfoundland are at stake in this House today.
The people of Newfoundland are entering the 21st century feeling
uncertainty and hope. They realize that excellence in education
is key to ensuring that Newfoundland stays in step with a world
marching out of this century faster than when it marched in.
The duly elected Government of Newfoundland has proposed changes
in education designed to propel it into the next century.
Although the bilateral amending formula under section 43 of the
Constitution Act, 1982 does not require a referendum to be held
in order to make constitutional amendments such as the one before
us, the people of Newfoundland were given the opportunity and
clearly voted in favour of the measure.
The people of Newfoundland have been trying to improve their
education system for a long time.
Education reform has been one of the key markers of this decade
for Newfoundlanders. It is clear there is a passionate desire in
that province to improve its system of education.
1345
Negotiations remained difficult for years following the Williams
royal commission and aspirations for improvements by all parties
in education were halted. The duly elected government has taken
steps it believes will ensure that improvement and necessary
efficiencies come about in this area, and they have been approved
by popular referendum.
Legitimate questions have been raised about the validity of that
referendum. The New Democratic Party believes that constitutional
change must be carried out in a way that is open and democratic
with meaningful involvement and participation of all Canadians.
It must be said that a majority of the population took part in
this referendum and a large majority of voters who took part
voted in favour of the changes to term 17.
An analysis of the vote provided to the special joint committee
showed that a majority of the voters in 47 out of 48 districts
voted in favour of the question. This includes districts where
the majority of the voters were Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics
represent the largest denomination in the province at 37% of the
population.
It is true that voter turnout in many districts was less than
50%. However, there is nothing to show that people were
prevented from voting. It remains the responsibility and a right
of citizens to participate in our precious democracy. It remains
the best method of consultation we have.
Some denominational interests that appeared before the committee
argued that the referendum question left the impression that
unidenominational education courses would be allowed, that the
actual text of the proposed resolution was released too late in
the referendum process to allow for full debate, that religious
denominations opposed to the amendment were denied government
funding and that scrutineers were not allowed. They also
objected to government funding and advertising in favour of the
question.
On the other hand, proponents disagreed on these matters. The
Newfoundland elections act does not mandate public funding for
the various positions. An expert in the international protection
of human rights, international law, constitutional law, civil
liberties and anti-discrimination law told the committee that she
believed that Newfoundlanders were consulted in the ongoing
process of educational reform. These consultations included
public hearings, two referendums and an election which in part
turned on the government's educational agenda.
The New Democratic Party acknowledges that in Newfoundland there
exists a broad consensus in support of the proposals of the
government to reform the education system in that province. We
are satisfied that knowledge of the wishes of the people of
Newfoundland on this question was obtained through the best
democratic means available.
The amendment before us gives the provincial legislature
exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education but
shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a
religious denomination. Religious observances shall be permitted
in a school where requested by parents.
Denominational interests felt the current denominational system
could not be adequately replaced by a provincially run system
which includes courses not specific to religious denomination.
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and the provincial
Pentecostal education committee were fearful of what this would
do to the role of their religion in the proposed school system.
Its representative said: “Traditional arguments favouring a
single public system centre on perceived problems of
fragmentation and intolerance. What is not considered, however,
is the negative impact on children of ignoring throughout their
school the most powerful influence in many lives, their religious
faith”.
The representative went on to say: “One's religious heritage
and faith contributes immensely to one's personal and social
identity”.
The Newfoundland minister of education told the committee that
while not guaranteed under the proposed new term, there is
provision for locally developed religious education courses on to
the department of education's current local course policy. Where
the school board determines that such a local course would be
desirable then there will be locally developed religious
education courses geared to a specific denomination and offered
in the school.
Others noted that exempting children from religious courses and
religious observances, which the courts interpret as including
opening exercises, may be considered inconsistent with charter
provisions and values. Others stated that the provisions could
be implemented in a way that would take into account previous
court decisions on these matters.
Thoughtful presentations were made to the committee that
minority rights were being sacrificed in favour of the wishes of
the majority.
The protection of minority rights is an important aspect of our
democracy and one which must be cared for with vigilance.
1350
The committee heard from several presenters concerned with this
issue, such as the Roman Catholic Education Committee of the
Denomination Education Commission. Its representative said the
amendment completely eliminates Newfoundland parents'
constitutional rights to choose publicly funded denomination or
separate schools for their children. They also said that the
religious education program referred to in the proposed term is
limited to a non-denominational, religiously neutral program like
those in public schools in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada. They
feel strongly that this is a radical shift from what has been the
status quo in Newfoundland for many years.
This is clearly a different issue for reasonable people on both
sides of the question.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association told the
committee that they are concerned about any effort to take away
rights, but there are occasions when the rights of others,
including the rights of the majority, demand the removal or
curtailment of a right. It felt the process in Newfoundland had
been well argued, debated and thought out over a number of years.
The association supported the amendment saying “with good faith
on all sides we can develop a publicly funded, non-denominational
system which includes all people and faiths without special
privileges for some churches”.
A representative of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association
told the committee that this amendment represents real progress.
He said “The state of equality and fairness can only benefit by
the abolition of special preferences for any denomination group
even if those denomination groups happen to comprise a large
percentage of the population. This is an advance, as far as we
are concerned, for the state of religious equality and
fairness”.
Although the proposed term 17 removes constitutional privileges
available to particular denominations, these privileges have not
been available to all religions. The committee was told that
this amendment makes all religions equal, none possessing
ownership over the primary means of delivering education in the
province, yet all with the same rights to deliver denominational
education without public funding. Further, any future government
has the ability to extend public funding to denominational
schools if it desires to do so.
It has also been argued that the constitution is a living
document that must reflect changes in society. Newfoundlanders
who make up these denominations have democratically requested
constitutional change in their status.
Another aspect of this is that the Roman Catholic community has
launched a court challenge to the amendment of the term. The
Pentecostal Assemblies have not taken similar action but made it
clear to the committee its preference that this amendment be
delayed pending the court's decision.
The committee was told by several presenters that international
covenants on human rights state that human rights are protected
adequately by ensuring freedom of religion and non-interference
of religious education and a dissemination of religious views to
children from parents. The proposed amendment is consistent with
these values.
It is important that the amendment before us not be precedent
setting for religious or minority rights in other provinces. To
that end, the unique history and political circumstances of
Newfoundland will ensure that no such precedent will exist.
Newfoundland's minister of education explained to the committee
that many people believe this amendment will affect
denominational rights in other provinces because of the language
found in section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The section
specifies that provincial legislation regarding education cannot
prejudicially affect a right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools held by a class of persons at the time of
union.
However, term 17 only addresses the specific circumstances found
in Newfoundland at the time of union, so it replaces section 93.
The rights protected in Newfoundland and Labrador are different
and not comparable to the rights that were guaranteed in other
provinces. As a result, rights which apply generally to other
provinces cannot be applied to Newfoundland and Labrador.
The New Democratic Party accepts that these rights will not be
adversely affected in other parts of Canada as a result of this
amendment.
After careful consideration of this issue, the special joint
committee supports the passage of this resolution amending term
17. The New Democratic Party believes there is broad consensus
for this change and that these changes will not be precedent
setting for religious or minority rights in other provinces.
1355
We are being asked to consider something only in the context of
the unique history and political circumstances of Newfoundland.
However, we recognize that this issue creates strong feelings and
passion. Questions surrounding religion and rights often do. The
New Democratic Party respects these beliefs and it may be that
some members may deviate from the party's position on the
amendment if they feel compelled to do so. However, all members
have in their hearts the aspirations of the people of
Newfoundland.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the hon. member' speech. She and I
were both on the special constitutional committee. I think she
fairly described the historical context of the debate and the
importance of this change to the province of Newfoundland.
I think she also understands how different the situation is in
Newfoundland from any other province in this country and how
important it is for our constitution to be living, flexible and
able to change when the provinces make the case that their people
are supportive of the changes being brought forward.
I want her to know that I agree not only with her historical
perspective, but also with her hope that the people of
Newfoundland will be able to move forward and get on with
building the kind of education system which will provide quality,
cost-effective education to all students of Newfoundland in a way
which is unique to that province.
This will deal with much of the frustration and anxieties about
which we have heard. We can set them aside. The divisiveness of
the past will be in the past so that the people of Newfoundland
will be able to work together in the interests of their
children's education.
I thank the member for her intervention.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague. One of the things which I hoped came from my speech
this morning was that the educational system of Newfoundland is
different and unique. Hopefully, as mentioned by the Bloc
member, we will have unanimous consent to recommend this
resolution today.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member sat on the committee. I want to refer
her to clause 2 of the amendment to term 17. It reads:
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.
Does the hon. member feel comfortable that the state has the
capacity to deal with religious courses in the total context of
her speech where she referred to it as not just a course, but a
faith experience as well?
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, in my speech this
morning I tried to allow members of the House of Commons to hear
what I heard during the deliberations of the committee. I felt
very comfortable with the evidence I heard and, therefore, I
recommend the change to term 17.
The Speaker: My colleagues, as it is 2 o'clock, we will
now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ARMENIAN EARTHQUAKE
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the ninth
anniversary of the tragic Armenian earthquake of December 7,
1988.
The magnitude of this natural disaster is almost unimaginable.
Over 25,000 lives were lost and hundreds of thousands of people
were left homeless and injured.
Armenians are forever grateful for the response of Canadians to
the tragedy. The Government of Canada provided over $6 million
in aid to Armenia through the Red Cross and Canadians from all
regions of our nation donated an additional $2.5 million in
humanitarian relief.
1400
On Friday, December 5, I joined many Torontonians to donate
blood to the blood donor clinic sponsored by the Armenian Relief
Society to commemorate the anniversary of the earthquake.
I urge my fellow members of Parliament to join Canadians of
Armenian origin and Armenians everywhere in mourning the loss of
family and friends as a result of this horrible tragedy.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have in front of me a Vancouver police report which is a wake-up
call for the Minister of Immigration.
The report lists 32 foreign nationals who were referred by
police to immigration authorities after all 32 had engaged in
criminal activity in the city of Vancouver in just one 24-hour
period on November 20, 1997.
The failure of the Immigration and Refugee Board to promptly
deport criminals is directly responsible for as many as 9,000
assaults, drug charges and weapons offences by foreign nationals
each year in Vancouver alone.
The minister recently appointed the president of the North
Vancouver Liberal Riding Association to an $85,000 a year
patronage position on the IRB. It is about time she cut out the
patronage and started fixing the problems instead.
How many more crimes, how much more cost to taxpayers, how much
more violation of our borders do we have to put up with before
the minister will act?
* * *
CASTLE OF GOLD
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the minister of public works I took part in a
special ceremony last week in the historic French community of
Maillardville, B.C.
Working with various local groups such as the Village Seniors
Equity Co-operative and the city of Coquitlam, CMHC helped make
this 32-unit housing project, known as the Castle of Gold, become
a reality for local francophone seniors.
Thanks to a partnership between the federal government and
private agencies, the increasing needs of our seniors are being
addressed. It is another good example of the government working
to enhance the lives of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
PIERRE PERREAULT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, Saturday evening, in
Montreal, it was a time of celebration for the many guests at the dinner
marking the 50th anniversary of the Mouvement national des Québécoises
et des Québécois.
Like the mouvement's president, Monique Vézina, I want to pay
tribute to the MNQ, which, through the unrelenting dedication of its
members, has been supporting the Quebec people in its difficult yet
necessary quest for identity. On that occasion, the MNQ silver medal was
awarded to the man from the “pays sans bon sens”, poet and filmmaker
Pierre Perreault.
Pierre Perreault is a true Quebecker who wants to have his own
country, and it is with great respect and admiration that we
congratulate him on this outstanding recognition bestowed on him by the
Mouvement national des Québécois et des Québécoises.
* * *
[English]
ST. JOHN AMBULANCE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as Canadians prepare for the next millennium, St. John Ambulance
will also begin celebrating its very own millennium anniversary.
With nearly 1,000 years of service dating back to the Crusades,
it is the oldest organized charity in the world. It is tasked
with enabling people to improve their health, safety and quality
of life through the provision of first aid services and training.
The Mississauga branch of the organization has spearheaded
numerous community initiatives in injury prevention and heart
health. Most notable is its drive to strengthen the chain of
survival for citizens in Mississauga and throughout the region of
Peel.
To this end a firefighter defibrillation program was recently
co-ordinated that enabled the Halton-Mississauga ambulance
services to become eligible for the OPALS paramedic program and
to champion a student CPR program that will see 14,000 grade 9
students trained to react to a cardiac emergency.
The work of the Mississauga branch of the order of St. John—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
* * *
HEMP
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, new regulations allowing hemp cultivation would create a
potential multimillion dollar industry and add export muscle to
our economy.
Over $3 million is waiting to be spent on seed, equipment and
market development by new companies in Paincourt, Exeter and Port
Severn, to name a few.
Commercial hemp was once a thriving industry in Lambton county
in the 1940s. Hemp fibre can be used to make carpeting,
clothing, bags and cardboard.
Hemp is an alternative crop to tobacco and uses no pesticides.
The health minister is working on regulations to govern this new
business so the 1998 hemp growing season can begin a successful
new chapter in Canada's export capabilities.
* * *
1405
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last best west was developed with the help of
railways. Railways were built and have continuously operated in
western Canada with massive government assistance.
Now railways are pulling up stake and leaving town. Rail line
abandonment is a real threat on the prairies. The government
invested in the only infrastructure able to efficiently transport
grain. With that gone, there is no viable route for grain. Our
roads are in shambles and our elevators are closing.
The federal government must invest in new infrastructure. The
National Highway Act of 1919 has to be taken off the back burner
and put on the front of the agenda.
Without a co-ordinated highways program many farmers will loose
their livelihood because of not being able to haul their grain.
* * *
CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw to the attention of the House the 50th
anniversary of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the celebration
of 50 years of wildlife preservation in Canada.
Since its creation in November 1947 by the government of William
Lyon Mackenzie King, the Canadian Wildlife Service has instituted
many extraordinary programs that protect the Canadian wilderness
and enhance environmental awareness of Canadians.
Such initiatives include research into the effects of toxic
chemicals on the Great Lakes, which has led to the banning of DDT
chemicals in Canada; conservation policies such as the Canadian
Wildlife Act and legislation to protect endangered species; and a
network of national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries
that protect over 11 million hectares of land for wildlife. The
list goes on.
I would like all members of the House to congratulate the
Canadian Wildlife Service for its distinguished service to the
people of Canada. Without such agencies our children and
grandchildren may not have the opportunity to enjoy the varied
beauty of the Canadian wilderness.
May the Canadian Wildlife Service continue to serve the people
of Canada and the world for generations.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
December 6 is the day that should forever be remembered by all
Canadians.
It was eight years ago last Saturday that 14 young women lost
their lives at the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal for no reason
other than they were women. All the women massacred were between
the ages of 21 and 31, in the prime of their lives.
The government has worked hard to try to protect women from
violence. We passed tough gun control legislation, eliminated
self-induced intoxication as a defence for violent crimes,
strengthened the effectiveness of peace bonds to keep abusers
away from women and children, and toughened the Criminal Code to
deal with high risk offenders.
It is not a problem that government alone can solve. It is a
societal problem. Only when there is an end to discrimination
and violence and when there is true equality of opportunity for
women in society will women feel safe in their communities.
I call on all Canadians to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
* * *
[Translation]
LEADER OF THE BLOC QUEBECOIS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week,
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was touring western Canada to talk
about the Quebec people to Canadians and explain our sovereignist
option.
Always respectful and concerned with advancing our cause, he
proudly represented the Quebec people in the rest of Canada. The Bloc
Quebecois' mission is to represent the interests of the Quebec people,
which necessarily entails achieving sovereignty while offering to form
a partnership with the rest of Canada. We want the Canadian people to
understand where we are coming from.
Contrary to what Guy Bertrand and other radicals may say,
Quebeckers need hope and achieving sovereignty is the hope that brings
our people together.
Our party will continue to defend the option that is at the heart
of our action in Quebec, in Canada and around the world, namely
sovereignty for Quebec.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal Party of Canada is taking “extraordinary measures”
according to their political boss Senator Dan Hayes.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is planning a staged
announcement of six transitional job fund projects in Manitoba
totalling $1.7 million.
An HRD faxed memorandum addressed to an official at foreign
affairs asks whether the member for Provencher or the member for
Winnipeg Centre should make roll up announcements and site
visits, but all six project locations are in Churchill and
Selkirk—Interlake ridings.
To include the local MP irrespective of party in announcements
would be extraordinary. What is not extraordinary is for the
foreign affairs minister to use public moneys for purely
political purposes.
* * *
1410
A HISTORY OF THE VOTE IN CANADA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
universal suffrage, or rather the right to vote, is an essential
element of democracy. Indeed some would say it is democracy
itself.
A new book entitled A History of the Vote in Canada tells
the story of the vote from the time of the first elected
legislatures in what is now Canada up to the most recent federal
election. It traces changes in vote eligibility, electioneering,
voting practices and voter turnout since Confederation.
Full of rich illustrations, period photographs, drawings and
cartoons, this fascinating book recounts how the right to vote
has evolved over the past 250 years.
The book is not only an excellent educational resource but a
durable reminder for Canadians of the significance of the right
to vote and of the leadership roles that Canada has played in
election practices.
A History of the Vote in Canada is available at bookstores
across the country.
* * *
POVERTY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, food bank
organizers have called on the federal government to reassert
national standards for social programs at this week's first
ministers conference. They are asking the first ministers to
repair the damage they have done to the poor.
The federal transfer cuts to the provinces have been
devastating. At the same time the Minister of Finance has
created a general atmosphere of cynicism and doubt in the minds
of people toward the legitimacy of the poor. That has led to
reduced food bank donations. First the people are devalued and
then others do not feel as guilty about turning their backs on
them. Even at this holiday time of giving and sharing we feel
hardening of attitudes toward the poor.
The prime minister must recommit to all Canadians, most
important the vulnerable; give back some of the surplus money he
has been bragging about; and make sure the poor have food,
shelter, a job and basic needs to live with decency and dignity,
unless like the Grinch the prime minister looks inside himself
and finds his heart is two sizes too small.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, bye bye
Imperial Tobacco. That was my reaction when I read that the
tobacco company was withdrawing its sponsorship from the major
events it used to support, the Formula One Grand Prix and the
International Tennis Championships. I call on Imperial Tobacco to
take the money it now puts into sponsorship and make it available
to the public for improved health services and a cleaner
environment in front of Canada's public buildings.
I also congratulate our Prime Minister, who said: “For us,
the health question is fundamental.
We have decided to loosen the law in certain areas, but we have no
intention of abolishing the law.”
Since these tobacco companies have not done too badly to date,
even going so far as to deny repeatedly that tobacco was a health
hazard until major studies forced them to sing a different tune, I
am not sorry to see the last of Imperial Tobacco. Let us get to
work to help the organizers of major cultural and sports events
find alternative funding that will put them on a more solid footing
in Quebec.
I think it is time we said bye bye to smoking and hello to
good health.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
* * *
[English]
HELICOPTERS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
since the Liberal government took office in 1993 there have been
770 emergency landings by Sea King and Labrador
helicopters, including two deaths in 1994.
It costs $66 million a year and takes up to 30 hours of
maintenance for each hour of flying to keep these aging
helicopters in the air.
Last month six Labrador choppers were grounded for two
weeks and we learned that the Sea Kings have cracks in
their airframes.
This weekend the navy's entire fleet of Sea Kings was
grounded because of a problem with the hinge assembly on the main
rotor head. The Minister of National Defence described the
situation as being not very much of a problem at all.
In case the minister has not noticed, the main rotor is the
device that keeps the helicopters in the air. It is not good
enough to patch and bandage these old machines at great expense
to the taxpayers. It is time the government showed some
leadership by announcing a replacement helicopter contract.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS SERVICE CENTRES
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
take the brief time available to me to tell members of the House
some good news for the greater Quebec City area.
On December 5, the Secretary of State responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec announced that
Ressources entreprises de Québec will be joining the Canada
business service centre network. This means that businesses in the
Quebec City region, as well as those in eastern Quebec, will have
direct access to information on programs and services available
from the Government of Canada.
Our government is proud to be associated with this initiative,
to which it has contributed almost $1.2 million in funding.
1415
Our objective is to take action to help Canadian businesses
develop and to simplify their operations. The arrival in the
Quebec City region of a business service centre is eloquent
testimony to the approach we are taking to ensure the growth of
businesses in this wonderful country called Canada.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week the prime minister will be meeting with the
premiers to talk about social programs.
When these social programs like medicare were introduced years
ago Ottawa paid a large portion of the bills, and that was how
Ottawa was able to spend its way into areas of responsibility
that belonged to the provinces like health care and education.
Today Ottawa still wants to control the programs but it has cut
the transfers to pay for them.
Why does the federal government think that the premiers will
allow it to micro manage social programs after having gutted the
transfers to the provinces?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have said, if we look at press reports, that
they want a national medicare program, they want national
standards and they want the federal government to work in
partnership with the provinces. This is exactly what we are
doing and what we will continue to do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, but partnership used to mean 50:50. When medicare
started out the federal government agreed to pay 50% of the
approved costs. This year the federal government is down to
paying 10% of the cash required to run hospitals.
The premiers want to talk about one of the key areas in this
Calgary declaration, the seventh point, about genuinely
respecting provincial jurisdiction.
Why does the federal government insist on running social
programs while slashing and cutting their funding? Is this
really the way to improve federal-provincial relations?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is odd that the hon. Leader of the Opposition would raise this
issue on the very day on which we are introducing the amendment
to increase the transfers to provinces next year.
As of next year, indeed as of this fiscal year, we will be
transferring the cash portion of $12.5 billion to provinces, an
increase over what had been intended because this government puts
a priority on health care. It puts a priority on preserving and
strengthening medicare in this country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the cut in transfers was over $7.5 billion.
There is one answer to this federal-provincial relations problem
in social programs and that is rebalancing the federal and
provincial powers. This is a unifying concept that has support
in Quebec, more support than the symbolic recognition of distinct
society and uniqueness.
The rebalancing of powers is something that both helps social
programs and unites the country.
Why does the federal government not simply accept rebalancing as
a concept and put it on the agenda at this meeting with the
premiers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health has just announced the irony in
the Reform Party's talking about these cuts to transfers on the
very day when he and I will be rising in this House to announce
that in fact we are increasing them by $1.5 billion a year.
What is particularly obscene about the Reform suggestion on the
day we are about to increase those transfers is that the Reform
party says, and I am quoting from the taxpayers budget, a Reform
government contributes—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
* * *
KYOTO
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
talk about balance. It is only a Liberal who could cut $7.5
billion and then say they are adding $1.5 billion and it is a
really good deal for the Canadian economy.
Likewise, the Minister of the Environment said in Kyoto that
she might just sort of change the targets. She has hinted that she
would impose even more drastic regulations on Canadian industry.
Since the finance minister surely has some idea of the economic
impact costs of this Kyoto deal and what might happen if the
environment minister changes again, is there an economic study?
If not, why not? If so, where is it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ministerial portion of the Kyoto meetings is under
way. There is active negotiation.
1420
It is very interesting that Steve West, energy minister of
Alberta, is quoted in the press as saying: “I have assurances
from the top of our delegation that Alberta's best interests in
industry would be protected”. If Mr. West is willing to accept
that, I do not see why the Reform Party cannot do it as well.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
those same representatives who had assurances in Regina found out
pretty quickly, within eight days, that the federal minister
changed her mind just like that.
There is a serious problem here. The provinces have done some
economic impact studies on what this Kyoto deal will cost. B.C.
and Alberta have backed off and the Saskatchewan delegation was
so disgusted that it cancelled its plane ticket to Kyoto.
I want to ask the finance minister this question, not the man
for all seasons. How can the finance minister think he can force
this deal on the provinces economically, especially when he
stands up in this House and brags about this new spirit of—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr
Speaker, the Reform Party has so far failed to put forward its
position. The basic question is whether the Reform Party has
calculated the cost of not doing it. Has the Reform Party
calculated the cost of global warming? Has the Reform Party
calculated the cost of this country's not going along with the
United States? Has the Reform Party calculated the cost of not
upgrading our technology? Has the Reform Party calculated the
cost of isolating ourselves from the rest of the world?
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend, the Prime Minister said that the federal government would
negotiate with the Quebec government should the yes side win. Through
this statement, the Prime Minister finally recognized the right of
Quebeckers to determine their future democratically.
Will the Acting Prime Minister acknowledge that the negotiations
alluded to by the Prime Minister last weekend would not only deal with
issues of common interest, but also with future relations between the
two sovereign states?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the results of a poll published in today's Globe and Mail confirm what
we already know, namely that two out of three Quebeckers are deeply
attached to Quebec and to Canada.
We want to assure our fellow Quebeckers that they will never lose
their country through tricks and confusion.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
not much of an answer.
I remember one poll that was not very favourable, when the Prime
Minister spoke just before the referendum. We saw what happened. The
government must recognize that sovereignty is a possibility.
Therefore, does the government not agree that a commission such
as the Bélanger-Campeau commission—in which the Prime Minister
took part—should be set up to look at two scenarios: Canada with
Quebec, and Canada alongside a sovereign Quebec? It would be the
responsible thing to do.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebeckers have already expressed in various ways what they feel would
be a clear question. According to a poll conducted in February 1995, 73%
of Quebeckers felt that the referendum question should be “Are you for
or against Quebec separating from the rest of Canada”?
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Last weekend, the minister said that the federal government would
not immediately leave Quebec following a referendum victory for the yes
side.
Are we to understand that the minister finally realized that the
sovereignist project does not provide for an immediate breakup following
a winning referendum, but for a year of negotiations between Quebec and
Ottawa, before sovereignty is proclaimed?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of confusion, let us look at the process set up by Mr.
Parizeau. Barely a few weeks before the last referendum, 53% of
Quebeckers believed that sovereignty could be achieved only after
reaching an agreement with Canada.
Yet, Mr. Parizeau's objective was to achieve sovereignty as quickly
as possible, with or without an agreement with Canada, a partnership
proposal which Mr. Bouchard called sketchy.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now that the
minister admits there will not be an immediate breakup following a
referendum, will he also agree that the best attitude for everyone
during this period will be one based on common sense, openness and
mutual respect?
1425
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Absolutely, Mr.
Speaker, and common sense, openness and mutual respect mean that we
should undertake negotiations on secession only if we have the assurance
that it is clearly what people want, that they want to stop being
Canadians and become part of an independent Quebec, through a clear and
legal process, free of confusion and tricks.
* * *
[English]
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the NDP believes that the future of Canada and the future of
Canadian unity is as bound up with how Canadians feel about their
country and whether they feel we are continuing to be a caring
community as it is with any other constitutional matter.
In that respect, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister or
perhaps the Minister of Finance will the Prime Minister be going
to the first ministers meeting this week with a plan for the
reinvestment in and revitalization of medicare and other social
programs so that we have meaningful social standards and
Canadians can feel they belong to a community and not just a
marketplace?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the NDP spokesman has stated very well the approach of
the prime minister. We want to strengthen our medical and health
care systems. We want to strengthen our social programs. We want
to do this working together with the provinces and all Canadians.
This very much will be on the mind of the prime minister as he
sits down with the premiers at the first ministers conference.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is not often you get three ministers rising to answer
your question.
The question remains unanswered. Will the prime minister be
going to the first ministers meeting with a plan for the
revitalization of and reinvestment in medicare and for bringing
back national standards for social programs?
Do not give us this bit about what they are going to do this
afternoon, announcing something that they have already announced
and making a big deal out of it. We want to know when they are
going to restore the cuts that have damaged Canadians' confidence
in themselves as a caring community.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member wants to know that we are prepared to reinvest
more money but does not want to hear that we are reinvesting more
money, if I understand his position.
We have a plan. This is the party that introduced medicare. We
have no lessons to learn from the New Democratic Party. Rather
than engaging in flights of rhetoric and self-righteous
allegations, what we are doing is acting. We are reinvesting
over $4 billion over the next four years in medicare. Canadians
know that is a strong signal that we are committed to maintaining
the strength of medicare.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, we heard all
the fine rhetoric from the Liberal Party of Canada in 1993, when it
guaranteed Canadians funding for health care and education. Instead, it
has unilaterally cut transfers by $6 billion.
I would like to know today if this government will, first, give
provincial governments the assurance that it will not make unilateral
cuts and, second, agree to the principles of joint management and
decision making in areas of shared jurisdiction.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the
hon. leader of the Conservative Party should consider is that not only
will we be announcing that $1.5 billion will be reinvested every year
following a successful deficit reduction program, but the Minister of
Human Resources Development has already announced not only a first phase
of $850 million but a further $850 million in support will be provided
for children. We have lowered employment insurance premiums and
reinvested funds in research and development.
Thanks to this government's efforts to clean up the nation's
finances, Canada is now in a position to invest in the future.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, this effort to
clean up the nation's finances was made at the expense of the sick and
the unemployed.
[English]
I would like to know whether this government is going to do like
it did in 1993 when it guaranteed Canadians funding for health
care and education then cut unilaterally $6 billion. I would like
to know whether at the FMC it will propose principles of shared
management in the areas of shared jurisdiction so that never
again will we have a government that cuts transfers unilaterally
as was the case in the last Parliament.
1430
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is personally indecent that this is coming from the
leader of the Conservative Party who during the election campaign
said that his party was going to cut environmental spending. It
was going to cut spending in agriculture. It was going to cut
spending in every one of our social programs.
Having stood up all through that election campaign saying that
it was going to gut our social programs, along with the Reform
Party, now the leader of the Conservative Party has the gall to
stand up here and complain when we are in the process of
reinvesting in the future of Canadians. He ought to get his
facts straight.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the B.C. government released yet another
devastating warning about the Liberal 73% CPP payroll tax hike.
This latest study says the increase will cost the B.C. economy
9,100 jobs by 2001.
Why would this government bulldoze ahead with its new CPP tax
grab when in British Columbia alone it will put over 9,000 people
out of work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the lack of coherence of the opposition manifests itself
in this case not only with the Reform Party but with the NDP.
Again the member for Calgary—Nose Hill refuses to acknowledge
the fact that there is a $600 billion liability.
Why the NDP did what it did, I am not quite sure, given the fact
that it was the position of the NDP government that the premiums
should go higher and that there should not be any reductions in
benefits.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is cutting
transfers to the provinces net by $6 billion and now it wants
credit for returning a little bit, a fraction of what it has
stolen from Canadians.
The Speaker: I would prefer that the hon. member not use
the word “stolen”, and please get to the question.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, why is the government
ignoring Canadians, provincial finance ministers and common
sense? When is the government going to start to reduce the debt
and when is it going to start to lower taxes and give Canadians
tax relief? What does it have against the working poor anyway?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the difference between ourselves and the Reform Party
does not lie in our desire versus its desire to cut taxes. It is
that we are not prepared to do what Reformers are prepared to do
to cut taxes. They would gut health care. They would cut it by
$3.5 billion to pay for their tax cuts. They would gut
equalization by $3 billion. They would gut old age pensions.
We will not do that. We will not cut taxes on the backs of the
poor and seniors and those who are being hospitalized.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has
made the addition of another $850 million for poor children conditional
on the submission by the provinces of a reinvestment plan, for their own
money, that must be approved by the federal government.
How can the federal government require the provinces to justify
expenses in their own jurisdiction, and also when these $850 million are
only a small part of the $11 billion that the federal government has cut
since 1994 from the Canada social transfer?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that our colleagues from the Bloc are
not very familiar with what is going on on the social issue.
There are absolutely no conditions related to the Canadian child
benefit. This is a system designed to help children in this country and
it is precisely a partnership between the provinces and the Government
of Canada, in which we are investing, through the Canadian tax credit,
$850 million. The provinces have chosen to reallocate this money,
according to the flexibility they have in implementing programs and
services, to targeting children in low income families.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
minister is not very familiar with what his boss is saying, because he
has said over the weekend that the additional $850 million would be
available on the condition that the provinces submit a plan.
Is this not just the old habit of the federal government to move
into areas under provincial jurisdiction as soon as there is money
available and is the government not using poor children as hostages to
impose its will on the provinces?
1435
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people really have to be paranoid not to understand
what we are trying to do in this country, because with the ministerial
council of the provinces and of the Government of Canada, it is a
partnership, a partnership approved by Quebeckers and by the other
provinces in support of children in low income families.
The Conservative leader was asking a bit earlier when there would
be mechanisms allowing for joint decision making and joint management in
this country. So I invite the opposition to show some interest in what
is happening at the ministerial council, which is a large collaborative
forum between the provinces, and we have done this in support of poor
children and the disabled in this country.
* * *
[English]
TOBACCO ACT
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me
correct a statement that the finance minister made. Reform's
position during the election was $4 billion back into medicare,
not the nonsense he is feeding us.
On a different issue, the tobacco companies have just taken away
the sponsorship from racing and cultural groups in Canada. They
want those cultural groups to do their dirty work for them.
Will the Minister of Health stand up for the health of our youth
rather than caving into the blackmail of the tobacco companies?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is precisely what we are doing. We want the tobacco
companies to know that we are not the least impressed by their
pressure tactics of last week, their blackmail of withdrawing
sponsorship from these groups.
We committed some time ago to an amendment to the tobacco act in
relation to sponsorship and that commitment remains.
We are preparing that amendment with respect to the complexity
from which it arises and we shall act when we are ready. We
shall not be influenced nor shall we be intimidated by the
pressure tactics of the tobacco companies.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take it
from that response that the health minister is not going to give
any exemptions to anyone else other than Formula 1.
The Minister of Health has a choice. On the one hand he can
have a strong, powerful bill which will protect our youth from
advertising. Let the adults have their advertising, if they
will. Or he can have a weak bill and cave in to the big
interests of the tobacco companies. Which will it be?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is a little behind the times. This government
introduced and this House adopted some months ago the toughest
tobacco legislation in the western world. We are miles ahead of
other countries. We have done things which the Europeans are
planning to do in several years.
In so far as sponsorship is concerned, the amendment we will
make will fulfil our commitment. We will do it when we are
ready, not when the tobacco companies say.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under the pretence of fighting poverty, the
federal government is trying to get involved once again in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. But let us talk about unemployment insurance,
which comes under federal jurisdiction.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development recognize that the
reason there are way too many Canadian children living in poverty is
that many parents are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance
following the minister's cuts to the program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of poverty must be tackled by all levels
of government. It should not be strictly a matter of provincial
jurisdiction, as the hon. member claims.
As for employment insurance, our government did what it had to do
by adjusting a system which was detrimental to a large number of
workers, and which had to better reflect modern labour market
conditions. As you know, our legislation provides for a follow-up report
on the impact of the reform. This report should be submitted by the end
of the month, or in January.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals took office in 1993, 65% of
the unemployed were collecting unemployment insurance benefits. Now, the
proportion has dropped to 41%.
Does the minister realize that, had he not made these cuts, at
least 335,000 unemployed workers who are currently excluded would be
eligible for unemployment insurance? Do your job!
The Speaker: Questions must always be directed to the Chair. The
Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques that
his predecessor, Maurice Duplessis, was opposed to unemployment
insurance and felt we had no business in this area. Such were the
orthodox and dogmatic ideologies of those people.
I looked at the employment insurance figures.
1440
I also note that, in recent years, unemployment has dropped from
11.4% to 9%. This is how we measure the system's efficiency.
I can also tell you that we are closely monitoring our bold and
modern reform. We will talk again about all this in January.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals' legal loophole called conditional sentencing has
allowed convicted rapists and other violent offenders to walk
straight out of court and not serve a day in jail. We asked the
justice minister if she would close the loophole in the law and
she has refused. Now the B.C. attorney general is making the
same demand, citing over 900 cases in his province where this
legal loophole has been applicable.
Will the justice minister close this legal loophole and ensure
convicted rapists and other serious violent offenders are jailed
and not allowed to walk free?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full
well that it was never the intent of the conditional sentencing
provisions introduced by my predecessor to apply to violent
offenders or those guilty of sexual assault.
My provincial colleagues and I had the opportunity to discuss
this issue on Thursday and Friday in Montreal. We have all agreed
that we will continue to monitor the use of conditional sentences
very closely.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, obviously
the justice minister is unconcerned about innocent men, women and
children who are being victimized by these people and there is no
deterrent whatsoever in the law. In fact, a briefing note from
the minister's own office indicates that not only are the
conditional sentences not being monitored but also there is no
offence for a breach, which is unacceptable.
We ask the justice minister one more time. Will she amend this
loophole in the law and do something about this dangerous piece
of legislation and protect the innocent people of this country
from these dangerous offenders?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that my
provincial colleagues and I had the opportunity to discuss this
issue in Montreal last week. We have agreed in principle that
conditional sentencing is working well. However, we have decided
to monitor the use of conditional sentences very closely. I want
to reassure the hon. member here this afternoon that if it
becomes necessary to amend the provisions, I will do so.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
Minister of Human Resources Development makes cuts that deny
335,000 individuals EI benefits, he is plunging many children into
poverty.
Instead of singing us his usual tune, could he not, with
Christmas approaching, show a little more compassion towards poor
children by making it easier for their parents to qualify for EI?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why members
of the Bloc Quebecois are objecting to what we are doing to help
low-income families with children.
I hope that Quebeckers are paying attention today, because
these people are not promoting the interests of poor Quebeckers in
the country right now.
I am astounded that this question comes to me from a female
MP. If anyone needs the system to be improved, it is women working
part time. We have changed the system from one based on weeks to
one based on hours in order to help women working part time, who
are now covered by the system.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians would be shocked to learn that someone could be
arrested in a province and be released even when there is an
outstanding warrant in another province for a crime such as armed
robbery. This is referred to as non-returnable warrants.
My question is for the solicitor general. What steps is he
taking in co-operation with other jurisdictions to ensure that
offenders arrested in one province are returned to another
province where there is an outstanding warrant for their arrest?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member's question underlines the need for
governments to work together. That is why this government has
taken a number of actions, including our statement on organized
crime.
1445
We spent two days last week in Montreal with colleagues dealing
with these very issues. Under the Criminal Code—
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am having difficulty, as I
know many of you are, hearing the answer. I would ask that you
please keep it down.
I am returning to the solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, as I said, that is the
reason why the governments are working together. Under the
Criminal Code you can exercise a warrant anywhere in the country.
The final decision is left to the provinces. That is the reason
why the federal government and the provinces have to work
together.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on September 7 Canadians learned that our parole system failed us
once again.
Cecilia and Tammy Grono were murdered in my home town of
Summerland, B.C. The prime suspect is Kevin Machell. He failed
to report to his half-way house while on parole and Corrections
Canada officials failed to report his disappearance for 24 hours.
That month the solicitor general stated that an investigation
would be conducted and a report would be filed.
The solicitor general has had three months. Where is the report
and why did the parole system fail?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The report is imminent.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is little comfort for the pre-school children of Tammy
Grono. This parole system has failed Canadians and this minister
continues to defend it.
It failed when Tammy Grono informed Corrections Canada of death
threats made by Kevin Machell. It failed when there was a
restraining order against Kevin Machell. It failed when Tammy
Grono wrote to Corrections Canada asking to be informed of a
change in status of Kevin Machell.
The minister's parole system favours the criminal. Canadians
want a system that favours victims and law abiding citizens. When
is this minister going to dump the current system?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am equally committed to the safety of Canadians. That
is why when there are incidents of this kind they are thoroughly
investigated and changes are made to the processes in the
interest of the safety of Canadians.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of 40,000 Canadians in Atlantic Canada and
Quebec, we would like to thank the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans for his comments last Friday regarding the TAGS program. I
quote “We felt it was important to support these people, help
these people, and we will continue to do so”.
My question for the minister is now that he has committed the
government to a continuation of the TAGS program, will he now
tell us in this House the details of the government's new
objective?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confused about the
situation.
This government has always supported individuals who, through no
fault of their own, find themselves in the type of difficulty
that the Atlantic fisheries found themselves in some years ago.
We are now studying how to continue to assist those people. To
suggest that a particular individual program will continue, as he
has, is simply wrong.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today workers across this country have again been
disappointed by the government with no agreement on pay equity.
This government has already admitted that it owes $1.3 billion in
pay equity to over 150,000 workers, mainly women.
Today Treasury Board says it will no longer negotiate with PSAC.
Will this government pay the $1.3 billion it has admitted it owes
as a downpayment and continue to negotiate the balance and stop
this injustice between men and women?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yes, today I made a statement that we have now evaluated the
counter-offer which was made by the Public Service Alliance of
Canada. They had previously indicated that their claim was $2
billion and they had indicated that they wanted to negotiate.
The valuation indicates that the counter-offer which was offered
by PSAC is equivalent not to $2 billion, not to $3 billion, not
$4 billion but $5.3 billion dollars. This is a figure that is so
clearly out of the realistic proportion that it indicates that
the syndicate is acting in bad faith.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of defence.
In 1994, a Sea King flying over my city of Saint John tragically
crashed and killed two crew members.
1450
The families of the military have been in touch with me since
1994 looking for new helicopters. The aging Sea Kings were
grounded last week for repairs. They are supposed to be fixed up
for the next four or five years.
My question to the minister is for the safety of our military
and for the comfort of their families, when will this government
stop playing political games and announce new helicopters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, crashes of any aircraft are most
unfortunate. There are a number of reasons why they occur, not
just the age of an aircraft but because of mechanical failures or
human error.
We do not put these Sea Kings or any other helicopters or any
other aircraft in the air unless they are safe to operate. We
recently grounded our Sea Kings so that we could check them out
very thoroughly. We checked them out and they are now back in
the air.
We know they need replacing in a few years because they are
getting old and we are working to do that.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this government is refitting our aging, cracking, unreliable,
30-year old Sea King helicopters to last until the year 2005.
These are the same helicopters that were grounded this past
weekend.
This goes against the 1994 defence white paper and I have
information that this will cost $970 million. Is this government
going to spend $970 million on repairs and then spend billions on
new helicopters? I do not think so.
Is it not true that this government has absolutely no intention
of replacing our aging Sea Kings?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Conservative Party has
anything to tell us about helicopters. If they had not botched
up the last deal, we certainly would have been able to resolve
this at a far cheaper price, which is what this government will
do.
It will meet our operational requirements. It will get the kind
of helicopters we need and at a price that is affordable to
Canadians.
* * *
TAX EVASION
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly embrace the notion that my Quebec
is unique from the rest of Canada but I cannot believe that
Quebec is unique from the rest of Canada when it comes to tax
fraud by restaurants using high tech software tools to conceal
real sales figures and taxes.
I want to know what the Minister of National Revenue is doing
about this kind of tax evasion across Canada.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that we take
action to ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes
right across this country.
I also want to assure the member that at Revenue Canada we have
forensic specialists. We have people who directly deal with
computer fraud and who will ensure that we continue the good work
at Revenue Canada. We ensure that all Canadians and all
businesses pay their fair share of taxes.
They do. Most Canadians abide by our self-assessment program
and businesses pay their taxes. We will continue the good work
that we have been doing right across Canada.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while
Senator Andrew Thompson shirks work and walks his dog under the
Mexico sun, a Senate subcommittee has reached a landmark
decision. Thompson should not get a salary if he does not show
up for work.
An hon. member: Oh, no.
Mr. Rob Anders: Good work, senators, but Thompson is not
the only Senate no-show. Senator Eyton, for example, has just
barely beaten Thompson's attendance record and showed his face in
the upper house a whopping seven days out of 91.
Will the real Prime Minister stand today and keep Liberal
promises to make the Senate accountable, or will he defend these
absentee appointees of the red chamber?
The Speaker: I do not know if there is someone in the
government who would like to address the question. I cannot see
it attached to the administrative responsibilities of this
government.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, you would hardly expect somebody on the
Liberal side of the House to be defending a Conservative senator.
Second, the hon. member's question does not pertain to anything
within the administrative responsibilities of the government. We
do not control the salaries or office space or whatever of the
senators. It is a matter for the internal management of the
Senate.
We all hope they will deal with it as quickly as possible so
that the kind of conduct that upsets us and so many Canadians
will not continue.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
wing of the Liberal Party of Canada has just passed a resolution
that the CBC be used to help promote national unity.
Are we to understand that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
wants to regularize what she has been trying to do for two years,
which is to make the CBC into a propaganda tool? Is she finally
going to make it into a pro-unity tool?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No,
Mr. Speaker.
* * *
SEASONAL WORKERS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development is aware of the fact that, because of the
fisheries crisis and the nature of seasonal work, hundreds of workers do
not qualify for employment insurance for lack of the requisite number of
hours worked.
In many cases, these families are not eligible for welfare. As a
result, they cannot afford to put bread on the table.
Did the minister sign an agreement with the provinces as he did in
the past to ensure that the workers have the required number of hours
worked to qualify for employment insurance so that they can have
something to eat at Christmas?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are very concerned by the plight of
seasonal workers. We are monitoring our reform very closely. In fact, we
have asked that, one year into this reform, we have an opportunity to
assess its impact on workers. This assessment will take place in
January, after I have received the report.
I must add that we are committed to helping seasonal workers find
work. The transitional job fund was established to create jobs, and we
have active employment measures to help these workers participate in the
labour market—because that is what they want—year round.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this government believes that buying new helicopters is some sort
of joke, but nobody is laughing. Charging Canadians over $500
million for nothing is no joke, it is an embarrassment. The
Minister of National Defence said that he would make an
announcement on a new search and rescue helicopter soon. That
was 79 days ago. Will the government make an announcement on the
new helicopters before Christmas or will the bidding process
start all over again in January for a third time?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct that this
matter is no joke. It is a question of providing the right kind
of equipment for our search and rescue technicians to be able to
go out and rescue people, to save lives in this country and on
its shores. We want to make sure we get the piece of equipment,
the helicopter that will best meet their needs at a price that is
affordable to Canadians.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This
federal government has the responsibility to aggressively support
and defend the agricultural industry and in particular supply
management.
Is this minister prepared to sit down with representatives of
the Dairy Farmers of Canada and once and for all resolve this
butter oil situation? How does he intend to address their
concerns on this very important issue?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government certainly recognizes the
concerns of the dairy industry and its representatives on this
issue. We have been monitoring with them the level of imports of
butter oil and sugar blends. I have met personally, as have
officials of my ministry and other ministries, with the officials
of the industry a number of times.
My colleagues and I are working on a method to address the
issue, and that will be consistent with our international rights
and obligations.
* * *
FOREIGN AID
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has sent over $10 million in food aid to North Korea. We
have leaked documents that show the minister knew there were
problems with distribution. Canadians want to be sure the food
goes only to the starving civilians. World food monitors in
North Korea can account for only 30%.
Despite knowing the food distribution system had problems, how
could the CIDA minister justify her decision to send $10 million
in food aid and how does she know where it went, for example not
to the brutal army?
1500
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the $10 million does not go to North Korea. It goes to
Canadian farmers to buy wheat and it goes to Canadian fishers to
buy fish, canned fish that is processed in Canada.
Second, North Koreans have kept very good records. There have
been monitoring teams that have gone in and have told us that the
food is reaching the orphans and the people it was meant to feed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
REPORT OF PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARIAN
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the report of the parliamentary librarian for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 1997.
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a
notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and
certain related acts, as well as explanatory notes. I ask that an
order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 15th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding associate
membership of the liaison committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this 15th report later this day.
[Translation]
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table in both official languages the second report of the
Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
[English]
In accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 108, your
committee undertook the consideration of climate change issues in
relation to Canadian preparations and participation at the
conference of the parties of the UN convention on climate change
presently sitting in Kyoto.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the
government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
1505
An important overall conclusion of our committee is that the
challenge of climate change offers a unique convergence of
economic and environmental goals. The economy can only benefit
from energy efficiency, energy innovation and the prolonged life
of fossil fuel reserves through more careful consumption.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-295, an act to
amend the Employment Insurance Act 1997 (schedule I).
He said: I thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for
passing over the national issue in favour of an important social
issue by choosing to support this bill, which is intended to
restore to unemployment insurance its objective of ensuring
unemployed people of a decent income while between jobs,
particularly the seasonal workers who have to live through what is
termed the spring gap, those ten weeks yearly when, as a result of
the Liberal reform, we are unable to ensure hundreds of thousands
of citizens of Quebec and Canada of a decent living.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-296, an act to amend the Employment
Insurance Act, 1997 (rate of benefits).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a bill to
change the calculation of employment insurance premiums. This bill
if passed will eliminate from the calculation of benefits the many
rules reducing the amount of benefits recipients are entitled to.
The bill aims to have benefits represent 55% of earned salary.
We will thus be a little more compassionate with workers facing a
period of unemployment.
I seek the support of all parties in this House.
(Motions agreed to, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act,
1997 (section 15).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, like my colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, to introduce
an amendment to this act to eliminate a rule known as the intensity
rule, which imposes a sliding scale—from 55% to 50%—in the
rate of benefits paid out to those regularly drawing on employment
insurance.
We need only recall the technocrat speech delivered to us in
question period and the insensitivity to those hit by unemployment,
especially the seasonally unemployed and the frequent users, whom
the minister wants to penalize with a 5% cut to their benefits.
In the face of this unfair rule, I propose the pure and simple
abolition of the intensity rule.
(Motions agreed to, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
1510
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-298, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997
(qualifying for benefit).
She said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which seeks to ease the
qualifying rules, is part of a concerted action by the Bloc Quebecois.
It proposes, among other measures, to correct two inequities
affecting newcomers on the labour market, people who return to the
labour market after two years absence and women who stay at home to
raise their children.
These people must work 910 hours, instead of 420 to 700 hours, depending
on the regional rate applicable to other workers. This creates two
categories of unemployed.
The bill also seeks to eliminate the two categories of unemployed
created by the current legislation, namely those who worked 700 hours
and those who worked less than 700 hours. It is impossible for those who
worked less than 700 hours to obtain parental leave or sick leave. This
is why we must support this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-299, an act to amend the Employment
Insurance Act (premiums and Employment Insurance Account).
She said: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the EI fund is
paid for by employees and employers. It is therefore clear that
this fund should be separate from the federal government's general
operating budget, as opposed to the present state of affairs.
The purpose of the bill is twofold: first, to give the
Employment Insurance Commission exclusive authority for setting
premium rates; second, to ensure that there is a specific
Employment Insurance appropriation account, for the very purpose of
preventing the Liberal government and perhaps others from
continuing to dip blithely into the fund belonging to workers and
employers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-300, an act to amend the Employment Insurance
Act (refund).
He said: Mr. Speaker, following on the initiative of a
generous man, and I am obviously referring to the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I am pleased
to introduce a bill to amend the refund level.
The purpose of my bill is to allow those with insurable
earnings under $5,000 to obtain a refund of their EI premiums.
The purpose of this bill is to extend this refund to all persons
whose insurable earnings are less than $5,000 so that this measure
applies to the majority of those who pay premiums without
qualifying for benefits.
This is a generous bill. It is a bill with a social
conscience. I think that is what sets us apart from the members
opposite.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
1515
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a
petition from a number of Canadians, including from my riding of
Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society.
The petitioners also agree with the national forum on health
recommendation that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that provide care in the home to preschool children
because the act does not take into account the real cost of
raising children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
choose to provide care in the home to preschool children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On October 2, 1997, I placed Question No. 21 on the Notice
Paper. This asked a fairly straightforward and simple question
about visits by ministers to the Drummondville, Trois Rivieres
vicinity during a 10 month period between August 1996 and June
1997.
Can the hon. parliamentary secretary indicate when we might
expect an answer to this rather uncomplicated question?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. I will certainly look into it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (NEWFOUNDLAND)
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today I will be sharing my time with the very distinguished
member from the great and historic riding of Saint John, New
Brunswick.
I am standing here for the final time to state my opposition to
what the House is doing before we take the vote tomorrow evening
on the proposed amendment to term 17, which is going to wipe out
forever our province's denominational schools. The right to those
schools is held by the various faith groups, as we are all aware,
and there has been absolutely no attempt to get the permission of
these groups before we forge ahead with what we are doing.
Instead, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador held a
general referendum wherein the rights of the minority were
subject to the will of the majority. Ultimately the courts will
decide on the legitimacy of taking away a minority right without
the demonstrated consent of the minority. Such a case is
currently before the courts.
I should remind the House that the supreme court did rule on the
consensus required to amend the constitution back in Prime
Minister Trudeau's day. However, it remains to be seen if the
court will rule on the scope and nature of the consensus required
to wipe out a minority right. Yet we are plunging ahead today
anyway.
1520
As we are all aware, the school system in Newfoundland, the
Christian based schooling of Newfoundlanders, will be a thing of
the past when this amendment passes. Religious instruction will
be replaced with courses about religion and I, as one citizen, do
not regard that as progress or reform.
A week or so ago I had the opportunity to serve on the joint
Senate-House of Commons committee that was holding hearings on
the proposed amendment to term 17. The MP for Burin—St.
George's was our regular representative on that committee, but he
was travelling in Atlantic Canada with the federal fisheries
committee and I had the opportunity to take his place for a
while. I would like to share some of the impressions arising from
my service on that committee.
There were passionate presentations before the committee from
Newfoundlanders who were for and against this amendment. I was
around for about 15 or 20 presentations. The
Newfoundland-Labrador Teachers Association, the Integrated
Education Committee, the Education First group, which I did not
hear, all spoke strongly in support of the elimination of the
denominational system of education. We heard representatives of
the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Pentecostal Assemblies and the
catholics who vigorously defended the maintenance of these
denominational rights.
At the end of the week the committee received a second visit
from Newfoundland's minister of education, Roger Grimes, but I do
not feel the minister's second visit was in response to the
presentations made by Newfoundlanders. I feel the minister's
visit was prompted by testimony from a couple of professors from
New Brunswick. I want to elaborate a bit on that.
Professor Donald J. Fleming of the University of New Brunswick,
faculty of law, and Dr. Patrick Malcolmson, associate professor
of political science from St. Thomas University in Fredericton,
had earlier given presentations on the legal implications of the
new proposed term 17.
I have no legal background and I have no great legal knowledge.
I am repeating what I heard from these gentlemen. The bottom line
on those presentations was that our new term 17 will be subject
to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the
term's clauses will be interpreted by the courts in accordance
with the provisions of the charter. The original term 17 and the
most recent term we had, the Clyde Wells amendment as I like to
call it, were exempt from the scrutiny of the charter because of
the original Confederation compromise.
In 1867 the Confederation compromise meant a guarantee of
catholic minority rights in Ontario and protestant minority
rights in Quebec. In Newfoundland that meant a guarantee of
denominational rights for a number of Christian denominations at
the time of Confederation back in 1949. Because these
Confederation rights were established before the charter came
into being, the provisions of the charter do not apply to these
particular rights. Confederation rights are not subject to the
charter of rights and freedoms, and of course we all agree that
is why catholic education today survives in an Ontario education
system that is otherwise completely secular.
The new term 17 before us today rejects the denominationalism of
the original Confederation compromise and is exempt from scrutiny
of the charter. Therefore in any future court case provisions in
the new term 17 for religious education and observances will be
subject to the charter.
1525
Again, I do not have any legal background. I am simply
repeating what I have heard these very learned and distinguished
gentlemen say.
I repeat that the new term 17 rejects the denominational wisdom
of the original Confederation compromise and is not exempt from
scrutiny of the charter of rights and freedoms. Therefore in any
future court case provisions in the new term 17 for religious
education and observances will be subject to the charter of
rights and freedoms. In other words, no matter what the
intention of the Newfoundland government or the intention of the
Newfoundland people, it is the Supreme Court of Canada which will
eventually decide the scope and nature of religious education and
observances in our new Newfoundland school system. That is why
so many people in Newfoundland object to what is going on here.
In his second presentation to the committee the minister of
education spoke with passion to the effect that he believed the
Newfoundland people did not want a totally secular, godless
school system. That is the way he put it. He was back to defend
their position. As evidence of that he pointed to the relevant
sections of term 17 which provide for courses in religion and
religious observances.
The thing we have to remember is that the minister of education
spoke as a politician. He did not speak as a lawyer, he did not
speak as a supreme court judge, he spoke as a politician. I
expected him, on his return visit to the committee, to come
backed up with a battery of legal arguments about the relevant
sections of term 17 and how these relevant sections could
withstand a charter challenge in the courts. However, that was
not the case. It was not the case because the Minister of
Education could not make these legal arguments to say that the
new terms would not be subject to the charter of rights and
freedoms.
I have made no secret of the fact that I support denominational
rights for the people who want to maintain and exercise those
rights. However, assuming that the new term 17 is approved in
its present form, as it appears before the House, I am not going
to take any great satisfaction from the courts eventually ruling
that our new system of education in Newfoundland has to be
totally secular. I will not take any great satisfaction from
that at all.
I sincerely hope the minister is right and that the courts will
allow for some expression of religion in our schools. However, I
know what we do have and I am not willing to pin the future
spiritual education of our children on a hope. In other words,
my short service on the term 17 committee has only strengthened
my intention to vote no when this matter finally comes to a vote.
Constitutional law drawn up in the heat of the moment might be
good politics for Brian Tobin and—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
member, but his time has expired.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): 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.
1530
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.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely sure
if I understand what the hon. member is getting at, nor do I
think anyone else understands it.
It was made perfectly clear to all of us at that committee
meeting that these two very distinguished gentlemen, Professor
Malcolmson I believe and Professor Fleming, that the provisions of
the new term 17 were subject to the scrutiny of the charter of
rights and freedoms. It would have been very appropriate on some
of these questions that the member and other members are asking
if this court case had been settled and allowed to go ahead and a
decision brought down before we proceeded with what we are doing
here today.
The Pentecostal Assemblies he makes reference to were given
constitutional protection back in 1987. There is no dispute
regarding the fact that their rights are protected under the
Constitution of Canada. Once this amendment goes ahead, they
certainly will not protected. All members are fully aware that
what we have now is not subject to the scrutiny of the charter.
Any new amendment, such as the one today, will be subject to the
charter of rights and freedoms.
I do not have any great legal background. I am only speaking
after what people such as Malcolmson and Fleming had to say on
this particular subject. They made it perfectly clear that it
will be subject to the charter.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, like my
hon. friend from Newfoundland, I am also opposed to term 17.
What we have to do today is take a look at where this country
has gone over the last 20 to 30 years and what it has done to our
young people of today. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a
major concern to me when I look at the direction in which so many
of our young people are going. We are not supposed to show them
any moral values. We are not supposed to talk about religion any
more.
But when we went to school it was there and it was good for us.
It was very good for us. We did not have a Morgentaler looking
over the House of Parliament. We did not have abortions taking
place. We did not have any of these things. So we just have to
take a look at today's society and ask ourselves in which
direction has it been going. Let me tell you, it has been going
in the wrong direction and this term 17 is taking us further down
that wrong road. It is time for us to turn it around.
1535
What I want to address is the fact that one wants to take a look
at what the Newfoundland government did in order to get this
through and to bring it here before this government. I want to
bring attention to the following points respecting the proposed
amendment of term 17 of the terms of the union of Newfoundland
with Canada.
In June 1995 the Government of Newfoundland announced that a
referendum would be held on September 5 of that year to seek
approval from the electorate to limit the power of Catholic and
Pentecostal churches to operate separate denominational schools.
The process involved an amendment to term 17 of the terms of the
union of Newfoundland with Canada which had provided certain
guarantees of rights of parents to denominational education of
their children. They should always have that right. Always.
The result of the ensuing referendum was a majority vote of 54%
of the 52% of the eligible voters who cast their ballots in
favour of the proposed amendment. Term 17 was amended
accordingly by Parliament and became law on April 21, 1997.
The Government of Newfoundland amended its own legislation to
bring into effect the limitation of denominational education
which is now permitted under term 17. However in its haste to
use its newly acquired powers to eliminate religious education by
denominations in as many schools as possible, it failed to comply
with the statutes and regulations it had enacted to attain its
objective.
As a consequence an application was made to the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland on behalf of aggrieved citizens alleging violation
of the law and discrimination by government against members of
the Catholic and Pentecostal churches. Mr. Justice Leo Barry
upheld their petition and granted them injunctive relief. In his
judgment filed July 8, 1997 the learned judge roundly criticized
government for utilizing unlawful and discriminatory measures to
implement the provisions of term 17 as amended. That came from
Justice Leo Barry whom many of us respect.
Having frustrated its own efforts to change the educational
system the government blamed its failure upon the Catholic and
Pentecostal denominations. It then called a new referendum
requesting public approval to abolish denominational education
altogether without having given the amended term 17 a reasonable
trial.
The following are some of the questionable measures taken by
government to gain a majority vote in the second referendum. In
a democracy I cannot believe that any government would support
this.
On July 31, 1997 the government announced that the referendum
would be held on September 2 next, giving the public a mere 32
days to analyse what it believed would be the government's
proposed amendment and prepare campaigns to express and promote
their views. It failed to inform the public of the text of the
proposed amendment to term 17 until August 25, just 12 days
before the referendum. For persons voting in the advance poll
this meant a notice of less than two days. Try that one in the
next federal election and see what happens.
It declared as one of its reasons to abolish denominational
religious education in schools that Newfoundland's standard of
pre-university education was low, intolerably low and that it
would be greatly improved by getting rid of church influences in
our schools. However the truth is that the standard of education
for schools in the province of Newfoundland rates third highest
across the whole of Canada and that is because they have
denominational schools and for no other reason. And they are
going to lower that standard as well. I want to say as well that
they rank third despite the fact that they have such a large
number of rural schools.
The government informed the public that the cost that
denominational schooling adds to the general system of education
is intolerably high. The fact is that the cost of education on a
per capita basis in Newfoundland is the lowest in Canada.
So tell us why they would want to take out the denominational
schools and the rights for other people in Newfoundland.
They have the lowest cost per capita yet they are ranked third
highest when it comes to their educational system. So tell us
why.
1540
At present denominational schools can only be established where
viable and where numbers warrant. This places upon the
government the responsibility to ensure that costs will not
reasonably increase. Its power to do this is unquestionable.
From the day it announced the referendum, government utilized
public moneys and resources to finance and support its own
campaign but it gave absolutely nothing to the other side.
I sat on the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. I travelled
this country from coast to coast. I was in Newfoundland.
Students from Memorial University sat with me that day. I was
only supposed to be there for four hours. They asked me to stay
overnight so I could talk to them. They said they wanted to talk
about their country. They were very special.
On the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future we were told by
experts that we have a big problem in Canada, that the big
problem is the charter of rights and freedoms because we did not
bring in responsibilities for all of them. Yet we are saying what
we are going to do is what Newfoundland is doing now. We are
going to let the Supreme Court of Canada make all the decisions.
I cannot believe that those who are sitting on the government
side in this House of Commons cannot see what a backward step we
are taking when we eliminate denominational schools. I ask the
government from the bottom of my heart to help our children
today, to guide our children today, to give them the opportunity
to pick up God's word in that Bible. It should be in every
school. I feel very sorry for anyone who votes against it and I
feel very sorry for the children of Newfoundland, as I do for
children in other provinces across this country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments. We have a fair amount of activity in questions and
comments so I will ask everybody to keep questions and responses
very brief. We will start with the member for Calgary Southeast,
then we will go to the member for Broadview—Greenwood, and then
we will go to the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I commend the hon. lady for her very principled remarks as well
as those of the hon. member for St. John's East who I gather is
the only elected politician from Newfoundland either here or in
the provincial legislature who has taken a position of principle
and courage by posing this proposed amendment.
An hon. member: Shame, shame.
Mr. Jason Kenney: He will be treated well by history.
I would like to comment on the cheap partisan heckling that is
coming from the other side on an issue that really should
transcend partisanship. I am a pretty partisan member of this
place but on issues like this one, when the hon. member is
speaking from the heart on principle, to be shouting shame and so
forth is totally out of place.
In the proposed new term 17, provisions are made for religious
education and religious observances in the schools, which the
hon. member for St. John's East spoke to. Does the member
believe these provisions will provide the kind of guarantee of
access to truly religious education that were guaranteed—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saint John.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member from the Reform Party for his question. No, I do not
believe that. There is no way. There is absolutely nothing in
term 17 that will guarantee there will be religious
denominational teaching as we know it today through our
Pentecostal churches, through our Catholic churches, our
Protestant churches, no. It is not—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments, the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a member on this side of the House, I salute the
member for Saint John. I will be taking the same position that
she will on this amendment.
The member is a seasoned politician in this country and she
knows the campaign skills of the premier of Newfoundland, Brian
Tobin. It was my colleague Brian Tobin who organized the 10,000
buses in less than 72 hours that helped to save this country.
1545
Does the member of Parliament who has this experience in
campaign organizing not believe that the expertise of Premier
Tobin, probably one of the best political organizers in Canada,
went a long way in making sure these percentages were such as
they were?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, yes, I certainly do. There
is no question about that. I know myself, when I was mayor of
the city of Saint John, I used to go to Mr. Tobin when he was in
opposition to help me win certain things for my city. However, I
have to say that the way in which it was handled was
unbelievable.
They would not permit any scrutineers to be present in the
balloting booths during the voting process or during the counting
of the ballots or to oversee the measures taken for the security
of the ballot boxes. Never have I seen anything like that.
I want to thank the hon. member for saying that he is there with
us all the way. I appreciate that.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.):
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.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that if I
were a teacher, knowing the Premier of Newfoundland as well as I
do, under his government I would not dare oppose anything he said
or I would not have a job tomorrow. There is no wonder they went
before them and said yes. I would not lay too much on that one.
I have to say this. I am pleased but I want to say one thing to
the hon. member from Newfoundland. I had a letter sent to me
from a man whom I highly respect and I am sure members do as
well. That man is from Saint John, New Brunswick. He is head of
our catholic church and he said that, if this goes through, there
is no protection for any minorities including—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laval West.
It is my pleasure to join the debate on this very important
issue today. This debate represents the second time in this 36th
Parliament that this House has been asked to vote on
constitutional amendments to reform school systems.
I believe that this coincidence marks a first for successive
constitutional amendments. Let me also add as an aside that this
coincidence certainly speaks volumes to those who say that our
system of government is unresponsive and that our constitution is
inflexible. To the contrary.
That being said, let me first deal with the process necessary to
enact this constitutional amendment. Section 43 of the
constitution provides that bilateral amendments can be made with
the consent of the legislature of the provinces affected and of
this House.
The Newfoundland legislature gave its consent by a unanimous
vote on September 5, 1997. I realize that it is too much to hope
that this place would also show its unanimous support for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador in their desire to modernize
their education system.
However, let me mention some interesting facts about the vote in
the Newfoundland legislature. There were members of the
legislature who campaigned against the resolution in the
preceding referendum. Once the results of the referendum were
in, they voted for it in accordance with the democratically
expressed wishes of their constituents.
MLAs who are members of communities affected by this resolution
voted for it. They included Roman Catholics, Anglicans and
Pentecostals. As federal politicians from across the country, we
must remember that these provincial MLAs and their constituents
are responsible to the very people affected by this resolution
and to the very people who, furthermore, have directly been
consulted about this issue through provincial election and
through the schools referendum.
Those MLAs and their constituents have voted in favour of this
amendment.
1550
I feel we must very clear on the role that federal MPs should
play in this debate on a subject of provincial jurisdiction. As
an Ontario MP, for example, I would not appreciate members of
Parliament from Alberta or Nova Scotia telling me what was best
or good for the people of Waterloo—Wellington. I would ask my
hon. colleagues in this House to consider this in placing their
vote on this issue.
I am sure that some of my colleagues will also be speaking to
the appropriate role of federal politicians in a debate of this
importance. One hundred and thirty years after Confederation it
is appropriate that federal politicians do not play a
paternalistic role in constitutional amendments. I would argue
that it is not appropriate that any member of this place cast
their vote based on their decision that this resolution is or is
not good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would argue rather that as federal politicians we need to
consider the following issues. First, have the the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador been consulted on this issue? Second,
have the communities directly affected by this change and
challenge been consulted? Third, have these communities
consented to this change? The answer, as members know, is
affirmative to all these questions.
I am relying on the report of the special joint committee on
this issue, as tabled in this House. In that multiparty report,
the committee recommends the resolution and states “the
consensus in Newfoundland and Labrador is such that the federal
Houses of Parliament should endorse the amendment”.
The committee heard from two witnesses whom I consider to be
experts on minority rights. The Newfoundland and Labrador Human
Rights Association stated the following about minority rights:
“After 150 years it does not seem unreasonable to stop and
consider our denominational system in the context of a society
that is no longer exclusively Christian and a society where the
religious rights of all citizens are protected by section 2 of
the charter of rights and freedoms”.
The second witness whom I would like to try and bring to the
attention of this House is Mr. Allan Borovoy of the Canadian
Civil Liberties Association. Mr. Borovoy, as members know, has a
reputation as an astute and dedicated advocate of civil liberties
and has appeared before committees of this House on many
occasions.
The report of the special joint committee quotes from Mr.
Borovoy, page 9: “The state of equality and fairness can only
benefit by the abolition of special preferences for any
denominational groups even if those denominations happen to
comprise a large percentage of the population. This is an
advance, as far as we are concerned, for the state of religious
equality and fairness”.
Who does not have these minority rights? These people are the
true minorities of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Jewish
community does not have denominational schools at this time. The
Baptist community, representing .2% of the population, does not
have denominational schools. The Pentecostal community,
representing 7% of the population, does have denominational
schools.
This situation may represent a historic compromise among
religious groups but it cannot be considered a true
minority-majority situation, nor an equitable use of scarce
educational dollars.
As in any debate on minority-majority distinction, many numbers
are thrown out justifying each side of the debate. In supporting
this resolution personally, I am relying on the following facts.
The first is that 96% of the population have denominational
privileges. Second, 74% of the population supported this
resolution in a referendum.
That brings me to my last point. Recently Mr. Clyde Wells, the
former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, was in Ottawa and
spoke to this issue at a debate organized by my colleagues across
the way.
Mr. Wells made the following points: There are 573,000 people
in Newfoundland, roughly the same size as my part of Ontario,
Waterloo region and Wellington county, and yet there are more
school boards per capita than in almost anywhere else in this
country. Newfoundland has currently divided its educational
budget among 27 school boards in 700 communities along 10,000
miles of coastline. Why is there such duplication and overlap in
this province which is already reeling from economic troubles?
What is the logical solution to this situation?
I submit to this House that the logical solution is the present
resolution. This resolution represents a compromise of years of
public debate, a democratic referendum result of 74% and a
unanimous vote in the provincial legislature.
[Translation]
The federal government will continue to look after the interests of
all Canadians. Canada's past was remarkable, its future will be even
more so.
1555
[English]
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this very
important resolution.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a comment and a question.
The comment is that the hon. member remarked on how education is
a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I think he threw some
question on the fact of whether some of us should even be
debating this given that it is such a matter of provincial
jurisdiction.
The proposed amendment is before this place precisely because
the Fathers of Confederation originally in section 93 of the BNA
and then in term 17 of 1949 decided that while education ought to
be a provincial responsibility, this place, this Parliament ought
to be the ultimate protector of the minority against the wishes
of the majority when it comes to the nature, character and
guarantees for denominational education.
My question follows from that. The hon. member also suggested
that there are certain minority groups, sectarian groups such as
Jews and others, who are left out of the denominational education
provisions in the original term 17.
Would the hon. member agree with me and many Newfoundlanders
that the best way to repair that inequity is not to collapse the
rights for some, but to expand the rights so that they include
all? Would the hon. member support an effort to broaden the
effect of term 17 so that it would provide the right to access
denominational, publicly funded schools for all sectarian
minorities and not just those so specified in the original term?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the hon.
member opposite for the question. As a former secondary school
teacher, I am well aware of the jurisdictional split with respect
to the provinces and the federal government on the issue of
education. I am quite cognizant of what needs to take place.
I think the key in all of this is the fact that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador were consulted and they spoke very loud
in terms of what they wanted. I think it is very important to
listen to what they had to say. In fact, that is precisely why
this resolution is proceeding, because we listened closely.
In the interests of fairness and equity, this resolution now
should proceed accordingly.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the fact that he would not
like someone from another province interfering and that he would
not want to interfere in the business of another province, or
something of that nature.
I would like to inform the hon. member that the question of the
constitution is a Canadian concept. It does not belong to just
one province. As a result, I have received a number of letters,
in bundles of 25 and 49, from a minority group in Saskatchewan
asking if the passing of this particular motion in any way
endangers their minority position of operating a separate
religious school in Saskatchewan.
As was said, the majority of people have made a distinct
decision in Nova Scotia. What happens if that same concept was
moved to the province of Alberta? I am asking the member, could
I really say that the passage of this bill will have no effect on
that minority group in Saskatchewan?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the
hon. member that I think we are dealing with the situation in
Newfoundland and Labrador today, not Nova Scotia.
It seems to me that it was important that MLAs who in some cases
campaigned against the resolution came in to the legislature of
Newfoundland and Labrador and voted as they should, as their
constituents wanted after having canvassed the province in a
referendum with great interest . Clearly, this is a very
important debate. I think it is appropriate that we now move on
to ensure this is done for all Canadians and especially the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member to please answer the question.
The point is that there is a political precedent being set here.
There is no legal precedent and I think everybody knows that is
the case. Is there a political precedent and will it guarantee,
as my hon. colleague has suggested, that this will not in any way
jeopardize minority rights in other provinces?
1600
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question. I think the short answer is no. We are responding
to a request from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who
have spoken out very loudly in terms of what they want. It is
important that we listen to them and do the right thing, which in
this case is to proceed with the resolution.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to add
my voice and speak in this debate on the proposed amendment to term 17
of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
This is not the first time that this matter is brought to our
attention. I will therefore limit my comments to particular aspects of
this debate, whose final stage is beginning in this House.
The discussions around this issue these past few years clearly show
that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders want to reform their education
system.
This is the context in which, in 1990, the Government of
Newfoundland appointed a royal commission chaired by Dr. Len Williams,
a former teacher, principal and president of the provincial teachers
association.
[English]
In its report published two years later, the royal commission
specifically recommended restructuring the education system in
Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition, one of its
recommendations concerned the establishment of a single
interdenominational school system comprising the four separate
denominational systems already in place.
Seen as a compromise, an initial amendment to term 17 approved
by the people in a referendum two years ago was unable to rally
all stakeholders in the Newfoundland educational community.
In addition, an injunction which was sought by representatives
of the catholic church was granted by the Newfoundland supreme
court. The consequence of the injunction was that it stalled the
entire education reform process in the province.
We know what happened next. On July 31 Premier Tobin announced
that a referendum would be held and in that public consultation
73% of Newfoundlanders supported the proposed amendment to term
17. This proposal carried in 47 of the 48 ridings in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The debate on the Newfoundland school issue is not a new one.
Discussions, at times heated and passionate, have been going on for some
time. That is why all I can tell those who claim that the people of
Newfoundland had but a few days to read the question is that the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador have in fact been discussing this issue for
years. It is perfectly normal for any religious minority to try to
protect its rights and to get the best possible protection for its
rights. And its officials have a duty to do so.
I believe however that the constitutional amendment proposal
received from the Newfoundland government does not threaten in any way
the situation of the various religious denominations in that province.
I must stress the fact that this amendment is in no way intended to
ban religious education from the classroom in Newfoundland.
On the contrary, it ensures that religious education will be
provided because, and I quote “religious observances shall be permitted
in a school where requested by parents”. That is what subsection 17.3
proposes.
[English]
It is true that the new text specifies that religious
instruction will be of a non-denominational nature. Nevertheless
the new term respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and international human rights conventions. I would like to
insist on the fact that it in no way forces children to take
courses or to follow religious practices to which their parents
would object.
The Government of Newfoundland has told us that it is open to
the role the churches are called on to play in the new education
system. Although the attribution of that role is not guaranteed
in the constitution it does not diminish its importance.
The substantial support garnered by the proposal should convince
everyone of the merit of this initiative, which does not aim to
give one denomination an advantage over another but simply to
give the Government of Newfoundland the opportunity to provide
the province's children with a better quality of education.
1605
We do not negate, quite the contrary, that children already
receive a good education. However we have been told that the
books in the schools date back to 1975. One of the witnesses
told us that she found in the library at her child's school that
its most recent book on the history of Canada dated back to 1975.
Obviously a great deal of reform needs to be done to that
system.
[Translation]
Some people expressed concerns about minority rights and their
protection under the proposed amendment. The hearings of the
special joint committee on the amendment to term 17 nevertheless
revealed to the members of the committee looking into the matter
that these concerns were not shared by the people representing
various organizations.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association rightly
stressed the protection enjoyed by the various religious groups
under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du
Labrador was satisfied with the protection afforded it under
section 23 of the charter with respect to its language rights and
with the policy of the Newfoundland government in this regard.
The president of the Labrador Metis Association endorsed the
constitutional amendment. The committee's report indicates that
nothing in the proposal would threaten native rights.
Our government is delighted by the clear support for this
amendment by the people of Newfoundland. We believe that the
consultation process was fair, that the aim of this proposition was
clear to all, that the question put to the public in the September
2 referendum contained no ambiguity and that ample support has been
gathered for the amendment.
[English]
Newfoundlanders and their government's request before parliament
is a reflection of their will to move ahead on this matter. Our
government believes it has a duty to support this initiative, not
only because of the popular support the proposal has obtained but
in particular because Newfoundlanders, with the support of
parliament, will be able to count on an education system that
will reflect their specificity and take account of their
priorities in this area.
Young Newfoundlanders will be the first to benefit.
[Translation]
I also see in this question one more testimonial to the
flexibility of our federation. I am the member for Laval West, and
we are well aware of the questions with which attempts are made to
divide people on constitutional issues.
The bilateral amendment process will make it possible for
Newfoundland to reform its education system. This is the same
process which should enable Quebec to carry out its own education
reforms, once the Senate has made its decision.
Our political system thus enables each partner in our
federation to have tools adapted to its own needs.
For all these reasons, I invite my colleagues in this House to
vote in favour of this constitutional amendment aimed at putting
into place a unique Newfoundland school system.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is an experienced legislator, perhaps not in this
House but in another house, and is no doubt aware the curriculum
that exists in the province of Ontario does not teach particular
principles, values or ethics to children in grades 1 to 9. In
fact that curriculum suggests that a menu of values and
principles be adopted, depending on what children think ought to
be right for them. There is no particular shared position.
Does the member suggest the religious education that will take
place in Newfoundland under the new terms will be a menu of
values and principles so that there is no particular common
consensus? In other words it will be difficult to determine what
is right or wrong, given the curriculum.
1610
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, the question my hon.
colleague has asked is a fundamental one. It is my opinion, having
worked for a number of years in favour of minority rights, in
Quebec in particular, that where values are concerned, these do not
differ regardless of our religion or nationality. Whether
Christian, Sikh, Muslim, Pentecostal or Roman Catholic, there is no
difference. I sincerely believe that all people share the same
values with respect to the fundamental rights of Canadians and the
right to religion and the vital element of respect of others.
Where Newfoundland is concerned, what its Minister of
Education told us very clearly is that his department, and the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, were prepared to allow
parents so desiring, not only religious instruction but also that
“religious observances shall be permitted in a school where
requested by parents”. That is a direct quote from term 17, as
proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is therefore seen as
willing, not to teach just anything, but to respond to the specific
needs of parents on the one hand and to comply with the fundamental
values accepted by all religions with members in Newfoundland and
Labrador on the other.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon.
colleague correctly when she says the religious observances will
be at the request of a parent. However the proposed amendment in
term 17 does not extend to the provision of religious education.
She is perhaps in error and should reread that provision in the
amendment.
Since the member thinks that everybody agrees on all this, would
she then contradict Justice Wilson who said that there should not
be any one concept of the good life?
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question here of
presenting just one concept of religion, life or philosophy with a
capital P. The object here is to meet the particular needs of the
population of Newfoundland and Labrador, which has its own unique
character, as do we all in our various provinces.
Within that population, there are groups with particular
religious requirements. According to the Minister of Education,
who appeared before the committee, the religious instruction to be
provided by schools in Newfoundland is very simple. It would
present the various concepts of religion, the fundamental values.
But, when it comes to fundamental values, I would like my
colleague to tell me how the values of Roman Catholics are
different from those of members of the Pentecostal Church, or those
of the Jewish faith. We all have values that are recognized as
being humanitarian values respecting the rights of others.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River.
Today we again speak of Canada's constitutional change. Today
we speak of Newfoundland's term 17 amendment. Last month the
House addressed Quebec's section 93 to permit the arrangement of
the education system along linguistic rather than religious
lines.
In terms of the significance of these debates on both
constitutional amendments this has been an historic session. I
am so very honoured to represent Edmonton East in this debate. I
am particularly honoured as the representative of my constituents
to have been a member of the official opposition on both joint
committees at which these amendments were debated.
I take pride in being a Canadian in a country where any
so-called commoner can aspire to a legislative role.
Two short years ago, devoid of political stripe, I held my breath
with millions of others as Canada barely survived Quebec's
referendum vote. Today I take part in a debate on the
Constitution that guides our nation's laws and which helps to
bind us together as a country.
1615
Constitutional amendments affect us all. They alter our national
rule book which forms the guiding principles for our provinces,
territories and our nation.
Our Constitution is not carved in stone. Our Constitution is
penned on fragile pulp. Our Constitution has a permanency of
time. Our Constitution is the will of our nation's constructors.
Our Constitution forms a framework supporting our national
fabric. Our Constitution has the respect of our judiciary and our
courts. Our Constitution supports provincial aspirations.
Should constitutions for all in Canada retain a permanency at
the will of our elected majority if the majority be polled by
national referendum? The answer to this question is a resounding
yes. Democracy and Canada are synonymous.
The key to my previous question was the term “for all”. Our
Constitution is important as a protection of the rights of all
persons. We must also remember that constitutions also exist to
protect the some. It is the some or the minority provisions that
elevate Canada in the eyes of the world, that set Canada
gloriously aside from all other nations on earth.
I have great concern at this moment that what is before us is
wrong. Should we extinguish a minority with the power and might
of all? The process must include an expression of the will and
in particular of the acceptance of the minority in order to
consider the extinguishment of constitutionally protected
minority rights.
It has been made abundantly clear through the course of the
special joint committee meetings which I participated in that at
least one of the minority groups, the Pentecostals, are not in
favour of having their constitutionally entrenched minority
rights extinguished by the majority. It is this matter that I do
find troubling and I express my concerns that it may be precedent
setting.
Minority rights have been entrenched in our Constitution to both
reflect our diversities and to protect them. Members must
carefully consider whether this request to extinguish minority
rights is the beginning of the slippery slope starting a slide
toward general ambivalence with respect to the protection of
minority rights, be they constitutionally protected or otherwise.
I urge all members to please vote with their conscience. We
parliamentarians must always remember we are charged with the
awesome task of being the defenders of the rights of all of our
citizens, be they minority rights or otherwise.
I am not persuaded that this change should be made now. It has
not passed the litmus test of satisfying all of three questions:
Does this constitutional amendment have the democratic agreement
of the people? Does this constitutional amendment conform to the
rule of law? Are the rights of minorities protected? The
question that is not satisfied is the protection of minority
rights.
The Newfoundland government held a referendum on the issue of
school reform. I am concerned however that the actual wording of
the question was not finalized and published until 16 hours
before the advance vote. Government paid advertising was not
clear and specific on the implications of voter choices but
instead was warm and fuzzy causing difficulties in responding no.
I would have been more comfortable if the Government of
Newfoundland had obtained a ruling from the supreme court on
whether the rights and privileges of minorities are prejudiced in
any way. The question of minority rights strikes at the fabric
and soul of Canadians. The rights of minorities for education
has been a well established fact in Newfoundland for years. How
well a country protects its minority citizens from the tyranny of
the majority is a measure of the quality of its democracy.
The protections in the Constitution are clear with respect to
the education rights of linguistic minorities. Court rulings in
Alberta in 1990 and in Manitoba in 1993 based on constitutional
interpretations clearly established the protections for
francophone minorities in those provinces affecting numbers as
small as 300 persons.
We have not been as vigilant in our protection of religious
minority rights.
1620
A petition was signed in 1993 by 50,000 Catholics requesting
that Catholic religious education be maintained. Fifty thousand
parents stated, “We support Catholic schools and want to keep
them”. The petition was tabled by Dr. Ben Fagan at the special
joint committee which studied the amendment to term 17 of the
terms of union of Newfoundland, a committee which I was
privileged to be a member of. In my view this remarkable
expression of minority collective will should not be ignored.
I also note that the protections for the education rights of
Pentecostals are not yet 10 years old. Former Premier Peckford
extolled the virtues of Pentecostal schooling and encouraged the
legislature to enshrine for all time Pentecostal education
rights. He said: “Today we are going to make sacrosanct, if
you will, make guaranteed in the Constitution of Canada, the
recognition of educational rights to the Pentecostal Assemblies
of Newfoundland and Labrador”.
He went on to further state: “I would only add one more thing.
As time goes on I would hope that the Pentecostal Assemblies of
Newfoundland with their start into education over the last couple
of decades will not be tempted and will not fall to temptation,
that what they have now as an approach and a philosophy to
education will not get diluted over time as we progress as
people”.
All available information indicates that the majority of
Pentecostals do not support the constitutional amendment. In
fact a petition tabled by Dr. Regular at the special joint
committee was signed by 4,300 people opposing the amendment.
Again this is a remarkable indication by Pentecostals of their
wish to retain their denominational education rights which were
so very recently accorded to them under constitutional
protection.
It has been demonstrated that there is a will by Catholics and
an overwhelming will by the Pentecostals to retain their rights
to denominational education. It is very troubling that
consideration of this will was not asked to be expressed
denominationally in the public referendum. We parliamentarians
must be ever so sure that what we say and do is acceptable to our
collective conscience and in accordance with our nation's
constitutional contract with its citizens. Let us not fail in
this purpose.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very interested
because I feel that issues of minority rights are important
issues to be discussed. When I researched this area in this and
the last Parliament it struck me that since Confederation there
were only seven religions in the province of Newfoundland, seven
minority rights groups in the hon. member's terms, involved in
the funding of the education system.
To my mind there are more than seven religions currently in
Canada. There have probably been more than seven religions in
the past since Confederation in the province of Newfoundland.
There could be people of Muslim background and faith, Hindu, or
Jewish people wanting to educate their children. There are even
people who exist in Canada whether we like it or not who are
atheist and do not want religious education. Those are different
minorities that have existed since 1949 and they certainly exist
today.
When the hon. member talks about the status quo and the
protection of minority rights, what about the rights of these
people to have their faith or lack of it incorporated into a
system? What happened in the past in the cases of children with
different religious persuasions was that they had to be educated
in schools that did not cater to them or did not have a
comprehensive ability to deal with the religion they were
involved in at home and in their lives.
I put that question very respectfully to the member opposite.
What would he do about that, knowing full well that we do not
have the jurisdiction nor do we have the infinite funding for all
types of religions in their school systems?
1625
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, that is an important
question. It certainly leads us to believe that those types of
questions should be answered.
The number of denominations mentioned in the Constitution is
limited and can be seen to be not fair. However, it is my
feeling and the feeling of many that rather than throw out the
constitutional provisions and protections we have, that we
address that issue, negotiate that concern and come to some other
solution. However throwing out the baby with the bath water by
extinguishing rights across the board without the permission and
polling of the group affected is not the way to approach the
matter.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): 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?
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, when I was alluding to
the confusion of the question I referred to the question that was
stated by the hon. member opposite.
Seven days prior to the referendum, the interpretation of this
question was dramatically changed by the introduction of term 17
itself where it specifically stated that it would be non-specific
to religious denominations. That dramatically changed the
initial question that had been in the advertisements for a period
of three weeks.
With regard to Reform policy, it has been clearly stated in the
Reform policy blue book that the Reform Party supports minority
education rights. It is our feeling however that minority
education rights could be altered or affected possibly by
provincial agreement. This unilateral action to extinguish it
was not the intention of the blue book policy.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in this very important debate on the
amendment of term 17.
I found making a decision on this to be very difficult, so
difficult that actually last week I had indicated to my own
caucus that I would oppose the amendment but since then, I have
changed my mind. I believe that this is about the future of
Newfoundland much more than about the past.
I support the motion to amend term 17. I am certainly concerned
about the rights of minorities, distinguishing rights if that is
what they have, and about the flexibility of the Canadian
constitution. We need to examine the type of educational system
that is best suited for the future of Newfoundland.
1630
I have no doubt that having been a teacher for 27 years in the
public education system will certainly bias my decision to some
point, but the question I focus on in making this decision is how
the amendment will affect the future and welfare of students of
Newfoundland schools. Does the amendment put the future of the
students first and foremost?
As has been mentioned by members of the House, it is difficult
being an MP from outside Newfoundland to deal with a Newfoundland
issue that has been ongoing for many years. It is difficult to
step into the shoes of a Newfoundlander.
Because education is a mandate of the province, I would have
preferred solutions to have been found in Newfoundland. I would
have been happier if the issue had not reached this House so that
the people and legislature of Newfoundland would have come up
with a solution.
In Manitoba we have a voluntary separate school system, but most
students attend a public school system much like that of the rest
of the country. The funding for separate schools, many of which
are religion based, is voluntary on the part of the government.
Some of them receive about one-third funding.
In Manitoba all facets of education rests with the province: the
school boards, teacher certification, all school funding and the
curriculum. It is ironic that with new provincial reforms in the
Manitoba school educational system there tends to be a new
direction of focus to give parents more rights in terms of
determining the schools their children attend, the type of
instruction afforded to them and the language of instruction.
In this case, if we amend term 17 we are literally taking away
religious education in Newfoundland as has been previously
practised by the minorities.
In Manitoba there is no compulsory religious education. As well
there is no religious observance practised in schools. In the
early 1980s Manitoba indicated that the Lord's Prayer was no
longer a requirement in the public classroom. Students who
object to the singing of O Canada have the right to leave the
classroom.
The province of Newfoundland has been struggling toward a
non-denominational educational system for the last 25 years. As
I indicated earlier, who knows? If this process had continued,
perhaps the legislature would have worked a little harder and it
could have essentially had a public system much like those of
other provinces.
At the same time we realize it is very difficult for most other
Canadians to understand and realize that a province such as
Newfoundland in 1997 does not have a public school system.
Most students are attending interdenominational protestant
schools in Newfoundland. I personally believe amending term 17
will level the playing field for everyone concerned, both
students and teachers. No one will be treated as a minority.
In other words, the whole issue of equality will be exercised to
a greater extent. Teachers will be hired and fired on their
professional merit, not on religious association. I am told a
generic course in religion will be provided to students and all
stakeholders will be consulted on its development.
Religious observance shall be permitted in schools where
requested by parents. Academic educational opportunities of
Newfoundland students will improve. As well an efficient and
cost effective system will be created. All this was recommended
by the royal commission and has been uttered by other members of
the House.
1635
The churches were asked to work together to create an
interdenominational system but after two years it failed.
A constitution tends to be regarded as a badge of nationhood. As
such it may reflect the values a country regards as important and
show how these values are to be protected, for example, as in our
charter of rights and freedoms.
Not all countries have the same type of constitution. Canada's
constitution is flexible and not rigid. Regarding term 17, which
only applies to Newfoundland, it was twice amended under section
43 by the bilateral amending formula.
I agree with Ms. Anne Bayefsky, an international law expert,
that constitutions must be flexible and, as befits the
description of a living tree, modernized and made responsive to
the needs of the community over time.
I am concerned about the lack of funding for parents who choose
to educate their children in a separate system such as religious
schools. Funding will not be guaranteed under the amendment as
proposed. Parents should have the option of sending their
children to a separate school system and I believe that funding
should be carried with the student.
In Manitoba parents have the option of home schooling, separate
schooling or public schooling. Outside Newfoundland the numbers
are growing in separate schools as well as in home schooling.
Religion is deeply entrenched in the educational system of
Newfoundland. No doubt many minorities see the amendment as a
threat to their constitutional right. Change is never easy.
Through referendum the people of Newfoundland have spoken loud
and clear. There is no doubt they want change.
This amendment will set the stage for future educational
opportunities in Newfoundland. The children of Newfoundland
deserve the best education the province can afford to provide. I
support the amendment to term 17.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Prime Minister.
It is a privilege to speak to this very important subject. It
is more in sadness than enthusiasm that I rise to speak to it. To
me it represents the death knell of faith based education.
Many parents believe that faith based education is fundamental
to who they are as people and who they are as parents. In
reality, we are now replacing faith based education with the
religion of secularism. At its core the religion of secularism
is no more and no less a religion than Christianity, Judaism or
Islam. It has its set of priests, an orthodoxy which is
political correctness, and its rituals.
If Newfoundlanders expect that by replacing their current
orthodoxy with a secular orthodoxy they will in some manner
improve their educational system, I am afraid the good people of
Newfoundland will be sadly disappointed.
To argue that parents will be able to influence the direction of
their children's education is not a hope based on reality. It is
an illusion. Parents of Newfoundland should consult with their
fellow citizens in Ontario about how much influence they have in
the direction of their children's education.
The government argues four main points: overwhelming democratic
endorsement, reasonable support among affected minorities,
religious observances in the schools protected and no effect on
other provinces.
Points one and two are really one point. Notwithstanding the
imperfection of the referendum process, the affected minorities
have given a form of consent upon which the Parliament of Canada
can act. There was a unanimous resolution in the house of
assembly. There were two referendums. There has been extensive
debate and there was a sincere effort to establish a consensus
among the affected minorities.
1640
The efforts of the Newfoundland and Labrador government to
obtain consensus and demonstrate consensus to the Parliament of
Canada are in distinct contrast to the efforts of the Government
of Quebec. A request for an amendment a few weeks ago was based
on a form of obtaining consensus that reflected more of a
political demand than any efforts to address the concerns of the
affected minority.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has met the test
which can reasonably be expected of a government when requesting
amendment to the constitution which affects minority rights.
The government's third argument is that religious observance is
protected. This assertion misses the point and is specious. It
is cold comfort to those who fundamentally believe that faith
should be at the core of their child's learning.
Religion, properly understood, is not a tag on at the end of a
school day. Rather it permeates the learning process. It is
part of the math course, the physics course and English language
courses. Late Professor Emeritus Northrop Frye of the University
of Toronto used to say, at the beginning of his very famous
course on the Bible and the English language, that you do not
really understand English language culture unless you understand
the Bible.
Similarly Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et cetera, see their beliefs in
a deity as essential to their learning. Those parents will be in
some manner doubly taxed. First they will have to support the
secularist based faith and then additionally fund educational
systems which teach their faith.
To offer religious observances as a tag on at the end of the day
is more of an insult than anything else and will be subject to
charter challenges. Parents of faith will once again wonder
whether Canada has freedom of religion or freedom from religion.
The government's final point is that it will have no
precedential value or effect on other provinces. This is a
dubious argument. We do not have seat of your pants federalism
is this country. Each bilateral amendment is necessarily looked
at by other provinces for precedents. It is fundamental English
common law that law is created by precedent.
The government has set very low standards for democratic
consensus in Quebec which has been greatly exceeded by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Constitutional lawyers
will scrutinize the process and the standards when giving advice
to their government clients. Even the manner and wording of
referendums will be examined for their precedential value. It
may lend new meaning to a real and clear question. It also lends
meaning to what constitutes consensus.
Notwithstanding my reservations I will support the amendment.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken. While I may
be skeptical of the path which they have chosen, the Parliament
of Canada should respect their choice.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the
amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with
Canada. The proposed amendment reads:
(1) In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act,
1867, this section shall apply in respect of the Province of
Newfoundland.
(2) 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.
(3) Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where
requested by parents.
Although the amendment before us affects only one province,
parliament has a duty to study it with the same urgency,
diligence and care that are befitting all constitutional
amendments.
In response to this challenge, parliament created the special
joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the
amendment to term 17 of the terms of union of Newfoundland.
I had the honour to serve on the committee for it gave me the
privilege to hear firsthand the witnesses. I must say that
witnesses on both sides of the issue were sincere, heartfelt and
articulate in defending their points of view. Their testimonies
did not make the task of the committee an easy one.
1645
The committee was challenged even more to undertake a careful
analysis of the evidence. This issue at hand, amending term 17
of the 1949 terms of union of Newfoundland, gave the federal
government and the Parliament of Canada the opportunity to show
federal-provincial relations do work and that the Canadian
constitution is a living document that provides a mechanism for
change when change is deemed essential by the citizenry.
Just as the people of Newfoundland determined their future when
the province entered Confederation in 1949, nearly half a century
ago, the people of Newfoundland today would like to determine
their future in Canada as Canada enters the 21st century. They
now see their future being best served by a single, publicly
funded school system in which all children, regardless of their
religion, attend the same schools. They now see their future
being best served by giving the House of Assembly of Newfoundland
and Labrador the power to fully manage and integrate the
province's existing three school systems.
Indeed they saw that future in March 1992 when the royal
commission chaired by Dr. Len Williams released its report “Our
Children, Our Future”, an appropriate title for the report. The
citizens of Newfoundland expressed this vision of their future
through a unanimous vote of the members of the legislative
assembly representing all political persuasions.
They have determined to eliminate denominational education as a
constitutional right while retaining in the constitution their
rights to courses in religion and religious observances as is
stipulated in the proposed amendment.
The government conducted a referendum on the issue on September
2, 1997. Although it was not strictly required for the process of
constitutional amendment, the referendum was conducted to better
gauge the sentiments of its citizens.
The referendum question was precise and clear: “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 essence of the referendum question fully
reflected the actual text of the proposed amendment as passed
subsequently by the legislative assembly.
Since the text of the proposed amendment was made known to the
people of Newfoundland prior to voting day, I am sure members
will share my confidence that 73% of those voting clearly
understood the question.
There is no denying that the educational system that has been in
place in Newfoundland has enjoyed a history that, for its
citizens, has been woven into the very fabric of its culture. It
is no wonder then that witnesses, old and young alike, including
students from both sides of the issue, displayed tremendous
sensitivity and passion in their testimonies.
But we noted that the rationale behind the amendment is to
reconcile a system of the past and present with the vision of a
better system for the future.
I congratulate the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through
the legislative assembly and government for having the genius to
cast a constitutional amendment that reflects this vision for the
new reality of Newfoundland. I am assured that the proposed
amendment complies with the international covenant on civil and
political rights and can stand against any challenge under the
charter of rights and freedoms.
Let me quote from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs:
If enacted, term 17 will become part of the Constitution of
Canada. Thus, it will be shielded from the well established
principle that one part of the Constitution—in this instance,
the charter of rights—cannot be used to invalidate or repeal
another. As a result, the provisions in subsection 2 and
subsection 3 will enjoy a measure of charter immunity.
This principle has been sustained by the Supreme Court of Canada
in earlier court decisions and I am assured that the amendment
process was fair. I am assured that there is nothing in the
proposed amendment to prevent some future government of
Newfoundland from funding private schools, should it choose to do
so.
I am further assured that the proposed amendment would set no
precedent, that future requests for constitutional amendments for
any province will be judged, as the present one is, solely on the
merits of the facts.
As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs put it well before
the committee, it would be up to the Parliament of the future to
consider any future proposal.
1650
We shall not fear to be proud of our national shared values,
heritage and traditions, in which Newfoundland is rich. We shall
not fear change when change promises a bright future for our
children, our youth and our country. We shall not fear to face
the future with confidence, secure in our history, generosity and
integrity as a people.
Amending term 17 is an appeal to our confidence and
understanding of Canadians. It sends the message that
confederation works. It sends the message that our democracy is
vibrant. It sends the message that when we secure a bright
future for one of our provinces we secure a bright future for the
whole of Canada.
Let us pass this resolution now before us for greater certainty
of the future of all of us.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the
House that messages have been received from the Senate informing
this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill
C-23, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money
for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending
March 31, 1998; Bill C-11, an act respecting the imposition of
duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the
International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description
and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of
certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other
related matters and to amend or repeal certain acts in consequence
thereof.
* * *
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (NEWFOUNDLAND)
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): 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.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the
House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
December 8, 1997
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles
Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
chamber today, the 8th day of December, 1997, at 5 p.m., for the
purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Your humble and obedient servant,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1655
[Translation]
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (QUEBEC)
The House resumed consideration of motion.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): 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.
1700
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.
1705
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—
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
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.
1715
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy
Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the
royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-23, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1998—Chapter No. 35.
Bill C-11, an act respecting the imposition of duties of customs
and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention
on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to
provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of
customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters
and to amend or repeal certain acts in consequence
thereof—Chapter No. 36.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (NEWFOUNDLAND)
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will conclude. Being interrupted this way cuts off inspiration,
but we will get used to it.
As regards the position of the Bloc Quebecois, you have of
course guessed that we support the request. The Government and the
people of Newfoundland have asked us to ratify a resolution
concerning the amendment of term 17 of the Newfoundland's terms of
union with Canada.
We consider we should accede to this request, and I encourage
all members of this House to do likewise, for two reasons.
The first is that the will of the people has been expressed in a
referendum. We saw that very clearly.
The second is that education is a provincial matter.
1720
The House of
Commons must accede to this consensus as it had to for the
amendment requested by Quebec on section 93. I dare to hope that
the House will do so when the people of Quebec expresses with equal
clarity its wish to become a sovereign country.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on
the remarks by the member for Berthier—Montcalm. He attempted
to draw a parallel between the referendum in Quebec, in essence
about separating from Canada, and a referendum in Newfoundland,
about building a stronger Canada. I do not agree with that
parallel.
However, I thank the hon. member for his support of the
resolution now before us and as well his support on the previous
resolution affecting Quebec.
I would like to point out for the record that the resolution in
Newfoundland was passed unanimously by all political parties from
all political persuasions, which is a real milestone. Even after
a unanimous decision on the part of the legislative assembly of
Newfoundland and Labrador on this particular issue, we cannot
make this a parallel because Newfoundland referred this to the
Parliament of Canada, as the constitution requires.
The member alluded to two rules, one for the east and one for
the west. I only know of one rule: the Constitution of Canada
is for all Canadians in all the provinces of our country.
Let me end by saying that when a referendum is for the
strengthening of our nation, we must rally together. However,
when a referendum is for destroying the very nation that we love,
the number one nation in the world, let us rally against it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, the member perhaps
needs to be reminded that the Constitution to which he is referring
also did not provide for the addition of a new province and, since
we are talking about Newfoundland, for Newfoundland to join Canada,
but it happened. What is not excluded from entering is not
excluded from leaving either, but that is another problem.
I would also like to remind the member that it is not a
question of destroying the country or whatever. What we want to do
is to build a country called Quebec, in partnership with Canada.
You will be masters of your own destiny, as we will be of ours. I
think you have not understood that yet. English Canada is
increasingly taking this in.
My leader, who is back from western Canada, told me that western
Canada is increasingly open to the idea of Quebec becoming a
sovereign nation and increasingly interested in starting to look at
the possibilities of doing business or continuing to do business
with a sovereign Quebec.
The last point I want to make to the member is that, in my
view, a referendum is a referendum, meaning that a population
decides on its future during this democratic exercise. In the case
of Newfoundland, it decided on its future with respect to
education. Is the member telling me that education is not an
important matter for a province? Is education not something that
will have a definite impact on the direction a people will take for
generations to come? I think it is extremely important and they
accomplished it through a referendum.
In this referendum, the population said yes to changes proposed by
the government.
1725
It will be the same thing in Quebec. We will have a
referendum that will be extremely important for Quebec, because it
will determine the course of future generations towards a very
specific goal. I hope the referendum will be successful the next
time around and that we will have a country called Quebec.
I would like to remind the member that, when a people speaks,
when they make known their views using extremely clear rules, as in
a referendum, either in Newfoundland or in Quebec, I think that the
people have spoken and that they should be taken very seriously.
I do not see any distinction between a referendum on a question
like the one put to Newfoundland and on a question like that put to
Quebec on sovereignty.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened
to the hon. member's speech. I was a member of the joint committee and
we heard testimony from several Newfoundlanders who expressed their
concern that certain denominational rights enshrined in the Constitution
were about to disappear.
They say they are a minority and, during today's debate, several
members of the House also expressed concern about this issue.
I ask the hon. member whether he has concerns about the rights of
minorities in the resolution before us today.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple:
no, I do not have any concerns.
I believe that the government first and foremost, that is the
Government of Newfoundland and the population of the province, acted
very responsibly. I met government officials from Newfoundland, not
during the 36th Parliament, but I met Mr. Tobin during the 35th
Parliament and we discussed the issue. No, I do not have any concerns.
However, they may want to debate this in that province, at some
point. As I said earlier, our role is really to ratify something that
was done by the provincial legislature, in an area that comes under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the province.
Again, I do not have any concerns. If a debate must take place, it
will be among Newfoundlanders. It will definitely not be up to the
Canadian Parliament to get involved in this area of jurisdiction.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
I would like to say that I am very pleased to take part in this
debate on amending term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland
with Canada. This amendment responds to an important need of our
fellow citizens of Newfoundland because it will enable them, once
it is adopted by Parliament, to proceed with the reform of their
educational system.
This debate has been going on for a number of years in the
province and the Government of Newfoundland has decided to put it
to an end by promoting the secularization of the school system
which has long been church run in the province of Newfoundland.
The amendment before us thus proposes a solution that is adapted
to the educational context of Newfoundland and it is also the
subject of a broad consensus in that province. It is that
consensus that led the joint committee on the amendment to term
17 of the terms of union to recommend that the amendment be
adopted both here and in the other House. Since it is not every
day that we amend the constitution, we must acknowledge that we
are experiencing here today in this House an historic moment in
the debate.
I would not like to spend my time regurgitating the exhaustive
overview of this debate because the House of Commons has already
considered this matter on a number of occasions in recent months.
I would, however, like to talk about a number of the aspects that
I feel merit the amendment transferral from the parliament of
Newfoundland, the House of Assembly, and the relevance of the
joint committee's recommendation for us to consider.
All those who have taken the time to study the Newfoundland
education system in recent years know how strong a call there was
by the public in that province for educational reform.
That was the conclusion arrived at in 1992 by the Williams royal
commission which recommended that the education system in
Newfoundland and Labrador be restructured to allow the government
to administer it more efficiently.
1730
The next five years were marked by endless bitter debates. We
tried an initial revision of term 17 in the last Parliament which
was approved via the referendum in the province in 1995. It did
not end the debate, so here we are again.
Although the support was 54.4% in the first referendum of
September 1995, the adoption of the proposed amendment did not
end the debate. A request for an injunction by the
representatives of the catholic church was granted by the
Newfoundland supreme court on July 8, 1997, thus blocking the
reform proposed by the provincial government. To resolve that
impasse, Premier Tobin announced on July 31 that a new referendum
would be held on September 2 to amend term 17 once again.
However, when he made that announcement he described the need
addressed by this constitutional amendment: “During the last
five years we have seen every attempt to reconcile these two
ideas—educational reform and denominational rights—and it has
ended in more confusion and more conflict”.
The text of the amendment submitted to Newfoundlanders for their
approval was very clear. It read as follows:
(1) In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act,
1867, this section shall apply in respect of the Province of
Newfoundland.
(2) 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.
(3) Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where
requested by parents.
To express their opinion on this proposed amendment,
Newfoundlanders were asked to vote again on the following
question: “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”.
I do not think there is a single member in this House who can
contest the clarity of this progress or this process. In this
debate we have a responsibility as members of the Parliament of
Canada first to ask whether the process used by the provincial
government in this matter allowed the population to understand
clearly the issue it was being asked to decide upon. Our answer
to that must be yes.
As mentioned by the joint committee's report, an expert
commissioned by the committee, Ms. Anne Bayefsky, specifically
stressed the scope of the consultations held among
Newfoundlanders, including minority groups in recent years.
Second, we have a responsibility to ask whether the consensus
forged by this referendum is sufficient to proceed with the
proposed amendment. Again I say the answer can only be yes. The
proposal was supported by 73% of the voters of Newfoundland. It
obtained a majority of votes in 47 of the 48 ridings in the
province. Even in predominantly catholic areas where the
proposal was likely to be more strongly opposed, it garnered
significant support.
Around 75% of the catholics in Newfoundland and Labrador live in
three regions: St. George's Bay, the Avalon Peninsula and the
Burin Peninsula. Those three regions respectively supported the
proposal with proportions of 59%, 72% and 72%. Support for the
proposal in areas where Pentecostals are concentrated, though
much more difficult to assess, was also significant bearing
between 57% and 64%.
In addition to that public support, the proposal won the
unanimous support of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. Four of
the government members, including two cabinet ministers, are of
the Pentecostal faith. Those four members who represent ridings
in which 25% to 30% of the population are Pentecostal also
supported the government's proposal in the House of Assembly. It
is also noteworthy that a number of the members who had opposed
the proposal during the referendum process nevertheless voted for
it in the Newfoundland legislature.
1735
In addition to the clarity of the consultation process and the
extensive support for the proposal, there is a third reason why I
believe this proposal deserves our support.
Newfoundlanders understand that the proposed changes are
designed to establish a new school system, not to abolish any
rights of a specific minority. They will allow the province to
proceed with long awaited reforms by establishing a single,
publicly funded and administered school system. This reform will
strike a fair and functional balance.
The new term 17 is in no way designed to take religion out of
the schools. It contains a provision obliging the authorities to
provide courses in religion, stipulating that religious
observances must be permitted in a school where requested by the
parents.
Naturally, it cannot be expected that such a major
constitutional amendment will garner unanimous public support.
Nevertheless, as was recommended by the joint committee, I
believe that the consensus which has been forged to date is broad
enough and the guarantees to the groups affected are properly
sufficient to move ahead with the proposal.
I know that there are those who fear change. However, it is my
heartfelt conviction that the children of Newfoundland will be
the first to benefit from this measure.
[Translation]
In my view, this debate we are having is meaningful in another way.
I am referring to the bilateral nature of the amendment sought under
section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Yet I consider that, while
this change concerns only Newfoundland, the whole country stands to
benefit from it, as it provides Newfoundlanders with a first class tool
to further their goal: a single education system better suited to their
priorities.
In a word, this constitutional amendment will further enable
Newfoundlanders to be Canadians in their own way, as Albertans and
Quebeckers are.
Our country is enriched by this diversity, and our system of government
makes it possible.
[English]
In effect, a constitutional amendment, such as the one before
us, demonstrates the flexibility of our confederation. The
federation is evolving every day and it would be a mistake to see
it as something static and impermeable to change. For example,
we recently in the House adopted a constitutional amendment
proposed by Quebec's national assembly. If it is adopted by the
Senate, that amendment would make it possible to establish school
boards in that province along linguistic rather than
denominational lines.
We have chosen to go step by step. This is a way which serves
Canadians well, just as it serves Newfoundlanders in the current
debate. That is why I call upon my colleagues in this House from
all parties to consider this carefully and to support this
amendment to our constitution.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on what I believe is an inaccuracy. Perhaps
the member opposite could explain it further.
The member commented on a difficulty in estimating the
Pentecostal vote in the referendum. I am referring to a brief
which was presented by Mark Graesser from the University of
Newfoundland. The figures that were quoted in the brief were
generally accepted. They were even accepted in the report of the
intergovernmental affairs minister.
There were some estimates as to what the votes were.
Specifically, the figures with respect to Baie Verte, Lewisporte
and Windsor-Springdale would indicate that the support for the
referendum in those communities of Pentecostals was 32%, 32% and
30%. The overall support of the Pentecostals was an average of
only 32%.
These figures show very specifically that the Pentecostals did
not support the referendum. I wonder if the hon. member opposite
could explain.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to clear
up the confusion in the mind of the hon. member opposite.
My comment was relative to ascertaining the percentage and the
clarity of the Roman Catholic vote. If he reads Hansard he
will see that in my speech.
There were witnesses who addressed this issue at the joint
committee. I would refer the member to the report of the joint
committee which was tabled last Friday. He will find the answers
in it.
1740
Again, to the member opposite who is a member of the Reform
Party, I have difficulty understanding how a member of a
grassroots party of the Reform persuasion who is constantly
talking about referendum and listening to the people can stand
there and be anything other than in support of this motion.
When 73% of the Newfoundland population voting very clearly
indicates that they want this change, I am astonished that
members of the Reform Party have not spoken earlier today. They
are not listening to the very, very clear will not only of the
people but of the province.
The legislature in that province unanimously gave its consent
and forwarded to this. It is our duty not to do any amendments,
not to say no, but to follow through constitutionally with our
duty in this House and to listen to the province. The province
has the jurisdiction on education. I think it has spoken.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yes, the Reform Party—
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Generally speaking,
but we also try to have opposite sides being represented. If
there is a member on their feet in debate, that is normally the
way we have been doing it.
If a member from the same party is on their feet alone, then
obviously that person would be asked to speak. If there is an
opportunity to actually engage in debate and have a member from
another party, it does make sense that that other perspective
would be represented.
Therefore on questions and comments, the member for Edmonton
East.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): 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.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to follow your
line of reasoning with all respect. You invoked the need for
debate. In fact, in the first instance when comment started on
this issue, the member you just recognized for the second time
started the debate.
Then the member from the government side responded to that
debate. However for you, Mr. Speaker, to ignore another member
of this House of equal value to participate in that debate and
recognized the member who had earlier spoken I think is a sign of
unfairness to this member, the other person.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. At the outset of this debate earlier
this morning, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
whose motion this is, was permitted I think three or four
interventions against a member for the Bloc while other members
of the opposition were standing up to interject in the same
questions and comments period.
Clearly a precedent has been established. The Chair allowed
this sort of thing at his or her discretion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, I mean
absolutely no disrespect for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
the Prime Minister, it has been at least in my limited experience
that if a member from a party representing a party other than
that party of a member who has just spoken, it has been the
convention to recognize the other party.
It is certainly no disrespect and it certainly does not indicate
that any members are more or less equal. In any event, on
questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton East.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
felt that it was important to answer the question from the member
opposite when the member was questioning how the Reform Party
could have in its blue book and its policies support for the
referendum process and how that is relative and why I might have
a differing opinion on this matter seeing that it very clearly
was initiated through referendum.
My point is, and I want to explain to the member opposite, that
the Reform Party also has policies in dealing with minority
education rights. That is my point.
1745
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how
non-inclusive are the minority rights of the member opposite. I
think of the seven religions represented, as I stated earlier
today to the member. The Muslims are not included. People of
the Jewish faith are not included. Hindus are not included. Even
atheists are not included.
This situation is like choosing which minorities to represent.
Parliament does not have the ability to cover everybody. We do
not have any taxing authority or public financing authority for
the elementary and secondary school levels in another province.
Education is an absolute provincial jurisdiction.
We are recognizing the will of the people of Newfoundland
expressed in a very clear question voted on by a 73% majority in
that province and in the unanimous consent of the provincial
legislature. They are coming to us on a section of our
constitution which allows us to do this in a bilateral way. There
is no comparable effect on another province.
It is important for my voters in Ontario to understand. I
answer the hon. member opposite by saying that I think he is
choosing his minority rights and excluding others.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Could I have unanimous consent to
ask a question?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister has requested unanimous
consent to put a question. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the
unanimous consent.
I refer to the report before us. Mr. David Schneiderman,
executive director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies at
the University of Alberta, said before the committee, on which
the member who raised the issue sat, that the consent of
adversely affected minorities was not always required for an
amendment to proceed. What is important is whether the minority
had been consulted or had participated. Obviously by voting for
it or against it the minority affected had participated.
Therefore, by voting against it, is consent unreasonably
withheld in light of the majority opinion? I thought I should
call this to the attention of my colleagues and I thank the House
for its unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue, because
the comment was directed to her dissertation, has an opportunity
to respond.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I think I have spoken
enough and my colleague is anxiously awaiting his turn.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): 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?
1750
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:
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.
1755
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.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member used percentage figures in his address.
I have worked in this business for many years, in fact a
lifetime. If the constituency I represent were to hold a
referendum today, it would be more than 73% in favour of going
with one school system. I would have to say to constituents in
Weyburn, Estevan and Radville who have enjoyed a private school
system, that they have to give it up because 73% of the people
said they had to do so.
I understand and appreciate what the member and others have
said, but do not ask me to make the same application as you are
making in the House to the province of Saskatchewan.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind all members
to address other members through the Chair.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: 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”.
1800
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.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary was the Commons chair of the special
joint committee. We heard much debate and we have heard more
debate here today on the question of minority rights. As a
Newfoundlander I wonder if he could tell us in this debate on
denominational rights, who is the minority and who is the
majority?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: 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.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I want to make a few remarks on this very important issue for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
There is not much more left to be said that has not already been
said today and which has already been said in this House a number
of times before. As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I have
been wrestling with this issue for many years. I was an educator
before I entered public life in 1982.
I debated this issue in the house of assembly, the Newfoundland
legislature a number of years ago when then Premier Wells and his
administration tried to move forward with educational reform in
our province. To some degree they were partially successful.
Then again Premier Wells' administration really did try to
compromise. They tried to get an agreement between the churches
and the government that hopefully was a workable solution, but we
found out after it really was not a workable solution.
What we witnessed in 1997 in the September 2 referendum vote was
a degree of frustration among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
They wanted this issue dealt with. That was certainly reflected
in the 73% yes vote, frustration. They thought they had dealt
with it in 1995 when 54.4% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
voted yes.
They thought the issue had been put to bed then. They thought we
were going to move forward with educational reform within our
province.
1805
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians wanted to improve the quality
of education inside the four walls of the classroom. That is what
educational reform in Newfoundland and Labrador is about. It is
not about turf wars or power struggles. To the ordinary
Newfoundlander and Labradorian educational reform is about improving
the quality of education within the classrooms of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Reference has been made to the quality of education by a number
of speakers today. Some have suggested that we rank third in the
country. Unless we are number one and the best that we can be,
then we will always have to strive to improve the quality of
education.
There has been a big change in Newfoundland and Labrador over
the last 10 or 12 years. There have been big shifts in
population, demographics, out migration. Our student-teacher
ratio has changed. Our student population has declined for a
number of reasons. One is out migration and another is declining
birth rate.
Our student population has shrunk so dramatically over the last
10 years that it has caused a different environment. There are
situations where so few students attend some schools that
consequently staffing allocations were affected and students
could not access the programs they needed to pursue
post-secondary careers. In essence, in many cases the
post-secondary choices of students were very restricted by the
course offerings in their schools. This is where we are in our
province and that is why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians desire
educational reform.
Some people questioned whether the 53% turnout in the last
referendum was high enough. It was democratic. People were
afforded the opportunity to speak on the issue. The wording was
very clear. I held back on the issue for quite a while. People
tried to pressure me in one way or another, that I should be
behind the yes forces or that I should be behind the no forces. I
told them that until I saw the precise wording of the new
amendment, I would not make a decision. And I did not make a
decision until I saw it and felt comfortable with it. But once I
did see it, the wording was clear and I felt comfortable with the
decision that I would support it and vote yes.
I have said before that if on June 2 there had been a 20%
turnout of voters in the federal general election and 11% of them
had voted for me, I would have been so grateful and thankful. I
would not have found anything wrong with 11% of the votes. I
would not have questioned it at all. If I was willing to accept
that kind of a vote on June 2, how can I question 73% of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who voted yes on September 2?
In the federal riding of Burin—St. George's there are six
provincial districts and part of another in that great geographic
area that takes in the entire south coast of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Well over 70% of the people in that riding voted yes.
All of the provincial members representing that riding in the
Newfoundland and Labrador house of assembly voted yes. How can
anyone expect me to come here tomorrow and vote any differently?
I understand that people have different points of view and
different opinions, that they grew up in different ways, et
cetera. I understand all of that and I respect everything that
has been said here today and that will be said here later
tonight. But the message is clear. Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians want this Parliament to deal with the issue in what
they perceive to be a positive manner, and that is to vote yes.
Let there be no mistake about what Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians want in this issue. They want this issue dealt
with.
It has gone on for eight or nine years. We thought it had been
dealt with but it really was not dealt with.
1810
In December 1992 in the Newfoundland legislature Premier Wells
spoke on this very issue. All the church leaders of the province
were sitting in the Speaker's gallery. I remember it very well.
At that point Premier Wells thought they could reach a consensus,
that they could reach an understanding on this issue. They
thought they had done so but we have seen what has happened
since.
In my view this issue is about governance. It is about
governing the province of Newfoundland and Labrador which the
present government was elected to do. The Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador was hamstrung. It was handcuffed. It
could not make the decisions about the education system of
Newfoundland and Labrador that it was duly elected to make as the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
If I were the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador or a part of
the government administration for Newfoundland and Labrador, I
would have done exactly what Premier Tobin and his administration
did on this issue. They were not able to run the education system
in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the truth of the matter.
They were not able to govern. They were not able to make
decisions because every time they tried to make a decision or
made a decision, someone challenged them and they could not move
forward on education.
We saw it all this past year when schools were supposed to be
closed and teachers were supposed to be redistributed in the
province. Then it all went back up and we had to reopen schools.
It has turned out to be a nightmare in Newfoundland and Labrador
over the past eight or nine years as we have tried to get some
sense of direction and bring about educational reform for the
benefit of those people for whom we should have been debating it
throughout those years, the students of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
It got off track. The debate was not about improving the
quality of education in all of those schools throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador. The issue got lost. It was seldom
mentioned. It turned into turf wars. I feel very strongly that
the government had no choice but to deal with it. As part of the
process the government went to the people for the second time.
Do not forget this was the second time that a majority of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for educational reform,
and this time overwhelmingly. So the people gave their blessing
to this reform and to this question. I do not want to belabour
the point here today and go on about it for the length of my
time. I just want to say to hon. members here that I respect all
their opinions and I respect the way they will vote.
It is interesting to note that within every caucus of every
party represented in this House there will be people who will
vote yes and people who will vote no. That tells us something
about this whole process. It tells us about how seriously people
take these matters. That is very good and I am proud of that. I
am proud to be part of this Chamber and this Parliament which is
so democratic and which is filled with people who are so strong
in their convictions. I say that quite seriously here tonight.
It is very interesting for me to be here and to witness this.
On behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and particularly
the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I represent in Burin—St.
George's, there is no question about what I will be doing
tomorrow or whenever the vote is taken. I will be voting yes.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for his eloquent position on the issue and his support for
the issue. He has reassured us that for Newfoundlanders the
question was very clear and that governance by a province on an
exclusive area of provincial jurisdiction has to be given due
recognition by the federal government.
I make only one plea to the member. The members of the
Progressive Conservative opposition in the Senate who sat on the
committee dissociated themselves from the report and the
recommendations contained therein. Because of what I believe will
be his persuasion, the member might be able to convince the
members of the Tory caucus in the Senate. Since he has come from
the same caucus perhaps the member could make an undertaking
today that he will exercise all efforts to ensure that support
comes equally from that caucus in the other House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the hon.
member for Burin—St. George's responds, there are three other
members who have indicated that they would like to intervene.
1815
It will go in this order: the hon. member for Calgary Southeast,
the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood and back to the hon.
member for Edmonton East. If we keep our comments short and to
the point we will get them all in.
In response, the hon. member for Burin—St. George's.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I really
want an opportunity to respond to that question, but the member
made a suggestion and I will do my best.
Yes, I will use whatever persuasive powers I have to convince
the other chamber to approve this without delay.
I have said from day one, when I made my position public on this
issue, that I would not in any way be party to any tactic or any
group or organization which tried to delay or stall this issue
and I remain firm in my position tonight.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I commend the hon. member for his remarks and particularly for
congratulating other members from other parts of the country in
taking this matter seriously. This is a matter which affects the
Canadian constitution and I think that all legislators,
rightfully, should be concerned about it, whether they are for it
or against it.
My question for the hon. member relates to the public mood in
Newfoundland. He referred to the fact that people are tired of
the debate which has gone on for nine years, the fact that it
seems to drag on and on, and that people want to get it over
with. Is it possible that some people voted yes in the
referendum which was held earlier this year in order to get the
matter done and dealt with? Were they more motivated by that
than they were in considering the long term ramifications? In
other words, was the referendum result, at least in part, a
result of public anxiety about the process and wanting to get it
done without having a full, thoughtful consideration of the
consequences of voting yes?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I would not want in any
way to attempt to diminish the understanding that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians had on this issue. They were well versed on it.
They were better versed than anyone else in this country, quite
naturally, because they were living it. They have lived it for
eight or nine years.
To be very honest, which we all should be, I would say that
there certainly were people who voted yes in the referendum
because they were frustrated. They thought it had been dealt
with in 1995 and then found out that it had not been, and here we
go again.
I would have to be honest and say yes, there were
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who voted yes out of
frustration. They wanted it to be dealt with. They wanted the
educational reform of Newfoundland and Labrador to move forward
and, quite naturally, I think there were some who felt like that.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had the great fortune of being taught by the Basilian
fathers during most of my high school and university education;
an order of priests who have set up academic institutions right
across the country. They have always believed that education is
more than the pure academic, that it is the development of the
whole person. In other words, from the moment we arrived in the
school during the day there could be a prayer or there could be
chapel. There was a prayer before the football game or the hockey
game. It was a total immersion into the catholic experience.
Does the hon. member for Burin—St. George's not feel a bit
concerned that this responsibility is now being handed over
totally to the state?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
of the hon. member and his concerns.
Again to be honest, yes, I do have some concerns about that. We
are talking about a very important issue. For me it comes down
to the quality of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have
gone through very tough economic times. We have gone through
severe population changes, out-migration and other things. We
have to weigh all these things in the equation before we come to
a decision.
Education takes place every minute that we are awake. Some of
the things which the hon. member alluded to such as prayer and
other observances certainly can take place outside school. I am
sure that will continue to happen.
If parents request it, then they will have religious observances
within the school. They cannot be denied.
1820
I do not know if I have answered the member in the way that he
wanted but yes, I do have some concern about that. Again, the
wording is quite clear in that there will be religious education
courses developed and offered in the schools, but the courses
will not be specific to any denomination. I think that is
probably what the hon. member's concern is.
I am not as concerned about that, obviously, as the hon. member
is.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wanted to comment. I certainly believe, as does everybody, that
Newfoundland conducts affairs democratically. Two referendums
have been held, one with a vote of 73%. That is a powerful
message being passed along through.
I want to refer the hon. member to another democratic instance
in 1987. That is when the premier of Newfoundland the
legislative assembly of Newfoundland made permanent, forever,
entrenched rights of Pentecostals.
I want to know how the member responds to this, how he feels
about something that is specifically entrenched, as Premier
Peckford's idea was, how this could now be affected when
obviously from polls and polling only 30% of Pentecostals agree
with changing their rights.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, again it is very
difficult to sort of respond. Yes, in 1987 the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a constitutional change that
included the Pentecostal Assemblies. There is no question about
this.
This is 10 years later. I guess if we could predict 10 years in
advance on any issue what the situation would be, then we would
avoid a lot of the problems, a lot of the very difficult
decisions that we have to make in this country and in our
province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
While the government of the day in 1987 thought that it was
right and proper to include those rights in the Canadian
constitution for the Pentecostal assemblies, there has been a lot
of change since then.
As I mentioned, there have been a lot of changes in our
province. There was the dollar crunch. The student population
has declined tremendously.
The government of the province must have the right to govern and
to make decisions. If the people do not like the decisions made,
they deal with the government the time after.
I guess all I can say on that is that times have changed big
time in Newfoundland and Labrador in 10 years, as they will be in
2007 from what they are today.
Maybe we will be changing it back in 2007, who knows. If I could
look that far into the future with a crystal ball—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quick
question, 30 seconds and a 30 second response.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): 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?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get
pulled into a debate between the hon. member opposite and members
of the Reform Party. I think I will leave it to the two of them
to agree or disagree.
They are ever changing times. Who knows in ten years what the
situation will be in the country. Who knows what will happen to
the population of Newfoundland and Labrador, what our student
population will be, what the economics of our province will be
with the new oil and gas industry, Voisey's Bay, and on and on it
goes. It is very difficult to answer some of those questions.
I know that is why members are asking them. They know they are
very difficult to answer.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
This is a very interesting debate because what is happening here
is we are seeing the result of some of the policies that have
been espoused particularly by the Reform Party but by many people
in different parts of Canada in relationship to governing by
referenda. You should never ask a question if you are not
prepared to live with the answer.
1825
I would not presume at any time to tell the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador how they should particularly run their
education system. Of course as parliamentarians and Canadians we
are concerned about the quality of education from sea to sea to
sea, and clearly quality is an issue that we would all be
concerned about. But what we are seeing here is governance, an
issue of governance.
I was first elected to the Ontario legislature in 1987 and I was
appointed as vice-chair of the select committee on education. It
is a little like deja vu all over again. It seems that no matter
what jurisdiction I wind up in, education seems to become the
focus of the day. It is very much a political issue.
I remember the concern that too often we are pulling up the
roots of the tree of the education system and examining it, not
leaving it planted, allowing it to grow. That had very much to
do with the pedagogy, with the quality of education in the
classroom, but a great deal less with the governance.
The people of Newfoundland have answered a question and I was
fascinated to hear the member for one of the ridings in
Saskatchewan say that he would not want to go back with a 70-plus
vote in favour of one system in his province and tell a certain
minority that it could no longer send its children to the schools
of their choice. The result would be that the decision based on
the referendum that would have hypothetically taken place in
Saskatchewan would have to be ignored. This is clearly one of the
problems we have when we think we can simply, in black and white,
govern by referendum.
I recall a marvellous speech given by a member of the Ontario
legislature. It was around an education system. He was from the
riding of Simcoe. I will not mention his name, for his own
purposes. He stood up and said I have done a poll in my riding
on this particular issue and 50% of my constituents are in favour
of this amendment and 50% are against, and I am going to vote
with my constituents. Interesting comment.
That is the push-pull. That is why we were sent here. I suggest
it is a very unusual issue where you can get a kind of clear
answer to a question. We have to ask ourselves was the question
legitimate.
I have heard the question read in this place and it is pretty
legitimate and pretty clear and pretty understandable. Something
impresses me even more than the 73%. I hear everyone saying that
maybe they voted out of fear, maybe they voted because they did
not understand it. There was a low voter turnout, all of this.
Let us set aside the issue of the referendum just for a moment.
Although I would agree with my colleagues who have spoken from
Newfoundland and Labrador very passionately about this, I would
agree it is something they must listen to. The numbers that
impress me the most are the ones when I look at how the
legislature voted in Newfoundland. There are 48 members.
Thirty-five of them are Liberals, obviously a clear majority.
Eleven are Progressive Conservative, one NDP and one Independent.
I served for five years in a provincial legislature in
opposition. Members from the opposition would understand what I
am talking about when we can say we can vote against the
government on this and it will still carry. God forbid that
there would ever be a vote cast in this place with that kind of
thought, but if it is a matter of political expediency, we can
stand against the government and it will still happen. It has a
clear majority.
Did the Tories do that? Eleven of them voted unanimously with
the government. Did the New Democrats do that? Obviously a
party with a tradition in opposition in this country that
understands what it means to oppose and quite often just gets up
in an opposing mood, it voted to support this. And the
Independent? I do not know the person. We have one in this
place. It seems that someone who is truly independent, who is
elected as an independent, who would be sent to a legislature as
an independent member, would find very little reason, in my
submission, to generally vote with a majority government.
1830
It seems to me that they would want to put forward the opposing
view, that they would see it as an obligation to stand in
contrast to the majority view of the government. Did that
independent member in the Newfoundland legislature do that? That
member voted with the government.
The fact that the duly elected representatives of that
legislature voted 100% in support of this tells me something that
very clearly is important. The debate took place. We know there
was a royal commission. In 1992 the royal commission recommended
this.
Newfoundland is a wonderful part of our land in this great
country. One of the real advantages Newfoundland has, I would
submit, is that in spite of the vastness geographically, it is
probably possible to talk to everybody in the province.
I represent a riding of 140,000 people. By the time the next
election rolls around, 50% of my constituents could be brand new
to the riding. It is a very fast growing, volatile changing
community. I would say, having spent some wonderful time in St.
John's, Newfoundland, that it is easy to communicate if you
represent that part of the country. You could probably, if you
really wanted to and I say this with tremendous love for
Newfoundland and Labrador, call everybody in a reasonable period
of time and get hold of them. There would be an opportunity for
people to voice their opinion.
With 48 members of the provincial legislature having that
opportunity, given the results of the vote in the legislature and
the results of the referendum, we have no right to oppose a
constitutional amendment in this regard.
Having said that, I know that my folks at home in Mississauga
are a little frightened of this. They are a little concerned
that this is the thin edge of the wedge. That catholic education
in the province of Ontario could be in jeopardy. I want you to
know that I do not believe that. Our separate school system, a
system which I went through—I went to our Lady of Sorrows
Elementary School and to St. Jerome, a boarding school in
Kitchener with the Resurrectionist Fathers—has tremendous roots
in our province.
We now have full funding of both the public and the separate
school system. I believe we are secure in the catholic education
system which exists in the province of Ontario. We should not be
worried that a precedent would destroy that. We should support
our brothers and sisters, our friends, our legislative brothers
and sisters in Newfoundland and Labrador. We should adopt this
very historic amendment to our constitution.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very impressed with the confidence the hon. colleague opposite
has that this will in no way ever affect the catholic education
system in Ontario. What evidence does he have that makes him so
positive that this could never happen in Ontario?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, having spent eight years
in the Ontario legislature, having been the vice chairman of the
select committee on education under the David Peterson
government, having served in opposition for five years, I feel I
have some comfort level in our province.
No one can ever say never. The point of the matter is that we
have a very strong and secure system of education, catholic and
public, in the province of Ontario. We then balance that with
the fact that we have a very clear message from the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a clear message from the
members who represent that part of Canada in this place. We have
an enormously clear message from the people who represent
Newfoundland and Labrador in their provincial legislature.
Frankly, I think—
1835
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have at least two
more questions and comments. We will go to the member for
Edmonton East and then the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member opposite mentioned the unanimity of the voting of the
legislators. I refer to newspaper articles of the time where
discussions were reported that the legislators were mentioning
that some would be voting no in the referendum. The comment was
that after the referendum they would feel compelled to vote in
the legislature the will of the voters. This indeed happened.
It was reported in Hansard of that legislature that some
members made speeches and talked to the effect that they had
indeed voted no, but now they felt compelled to vote yes. Those
are the individuals who are on record. I suggest there were
probably more. That is the reason for the unanimity. Would the
member possibly explain this?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, if it was in the
newspaper, it must be true.
We cannot have votes of convenience. We cannot say that we
should have a vote on this issue, have it carry and they say
“Ya, but I don't like the reason you did it”. There are
members in this place who will speak against and vote for this
because they have concerns, but the bottom line is that they feel
they must support this because of the clear decision of the
people. For the Reform Party not to want to listen to the people
is clearly astounding to see.
We have the message and we have a duty and an obligation to live
up to it.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point
out to this House that I am a member of the Roman Catholic faith
and I voted in the referendum in a particular way. However, when
it comes time to vote on this issue I will vote as a member of
the House of Commons who is speaking on behalf of my
constituency.
For the record, as a member of the Roman Catholic faith, I voted
personally for the amendment. I will vote as a member of the
House of Commons for the amendment because that is what my
constituency said.
On another point, I would suggest the following to those members
who are concerned this will have an impact on other
constituencies and other provinces in the country. I point out
one simple fact.
In 1987 we added the Pentecostal denomination to the schedule of
denominations that were provided with specific rights. We did
not at that time add other denominations in other provinces. We
did not add the Pentecostal faith to the Ontario schedule. We
did not add it to the Manitoba schedule. We did not add it to
the Alberta schedule so—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The last word goes
to the member for Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, probably the greatest
single thing about Canada is the diversity in our regions and our
provinces and the fact that they are so different in many ways. I
believe that what we have here is a constitutional amendment for
one area of this wonderful country. It is an amendment we can
support. The evidence is in and I will be proud to stand and vote
and support my colleagues and the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased that there is such a good diverse debate on
this subject. It is a subject that has been debated in
Newfoundland and Labrador for many years. It has been debated at
length during the last month or so here.
I congratulate my hon. colleague from Mississauga West for
giving such an excellent presentation. I also congratulate my
colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Natural Resources, for the leadership role he played in
co-chairing the joint committee of the House and the other place.
Those who know me will know that I have given this topic
considerable thought. I made my wishes known in the last round.
I will speak in support of this amendment before the House
because I believe it will be beneficial to the children of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Members will recall that there are no public schools in
Newfoundland and Labrador. As is the case in all provinces, our
education system is a part of our history. Our first schools
were sponsored, fostered and indeed promoted by the churches and
the clergy.
Governments did not assume responsibility for education until
much later in our history. Even when public funding became
available, the Newfoundland system was still directly and
exclusively run by the churches.
1840
I want to use the example of my home town in Bonavista which is
an historic fishing town. I think this year at the Cabot 500
celebrations it became known as the landfall of John Cabot.
Bonavista is famous for that but it is also famous for something
that is not quite as well known.
In 1722, Reverend Henry Jones came to Bonavista where he
supervised the building of the first church in Newfoundland. Four
years later, he organized the first school in Newfoundland, in my
home town. There is the connection.
By the time of Confederation, six individual denominations had
been granted the right to operate schools. They still possess
that right. It was pointed out in the previous debate that one
denomination was added in 1987.
Today in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are four separate,
distinct and individual school systems with overlapping boards in
a province with 575,000 people and 110,000 students, roughly the
size of Calgary.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have now asked
Parliament to give the provincial legislature the authority to
make changes in the denominational education system. That will
be the effect of our amended term 17.
Simply put, the legislature would have the authority to decide
and to direct educational issues and the individual denominations
would not. While the denominational school system was
incorporated in the constitution in 1949 for reasons that
certainly those from Newfoundland and Labrador would be aware of,
the people of the province through their government now wish to
make a different arrangement.
They believe that changes must be made to the schools for the
sake of their children and for their children's future. The
decision to make change was not hasty, not arbitrary and came as
a consequence of a long process of public discussion and
negotiation.
Just to quickly summarize for the record, six years ago the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed a royal
commission on education. More than 30 years have passed since
such a study was made.
The commission was chaired by Dr. Len Williams, a very
experienced and respected educator. The commission recommended
far-reaching changes designed to give the children of
Newfoundland and Labrador greater opportunity to prepare
themselves to lead full, satisfying and productive lives.
The provincial government decided to negotiate arrangements very
quickly and then Premier Wells and several of his senior
colleagues had a series of discussions with representatives of
the denominations.
They could not reach agreement and eventually the provincial
government was essentially faced with three options: to abandon
the project to make changes believed necessary, to agree to the
much less far-reaching changes which the leaders of the churches
were prepared to accept, or the third option, to seek a
constitutional amendment to give the legislature powers with
respect to education similar to those already vested in every
other provincial legislature. They chose the amendment.
Changes were so important to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador that a referendum was held. There was a majority of
54.8% of those who voted and endorsed the government's reform
proposal.
The government then asked the House of Assembly to decide on the
issue and every member of the House, except the Speaker, voted on
the proposal. All three parties voted in favour.
In June 1996, for those of us who were here at the time, this
House debated and passed a resolution amending term 17 as per the
request of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. The resolution
then went to the Senate which held public hearings as a single
Senate committee and passed the resolution with amendment.
When the resolution returned to the Chamber, the members decided
not to accept the Senate amendments and passed the term 17
resolution for the second time in December 1996.
On January 3, 1997 the Newfoundland legislature passed the new
schools act to implement the new education regime in light of the
new amendments of term 17.
The 1996 amendment represented the compromise arising out of
three years of discussion with the denominational education
committees. The attempt to implement this new compromise failed.
It failed after catholic and protestant committees sought and
received a court injunction in July 1997.
The provincial government complied with the terms of the
injunction which led to a complete disruption of plans for the
1997-98 school year. Those members from Newfoundland and
Labrador would certainly recall that with great disappointment.
1845
At this point the province had to decide to go back to the
people to hold a referendum on December 2. It asked the
following question: 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? As we have heard in the House, 73% of
those responding said yes. On September 5 the Newfoundland
legislature moved unanimously to approve the resolution to amend
term 17 and to seek the resolution which the House is debating
tonight.
During the last couple of months this issue has been the subject
of much discussion. In the last three weeks the joint committee
of both Houses once again held public hearings. As a result of
these hearings the joint committee has recommended that both
Houses of Parliament adopt the resolution to amend term 17 of the
terms of union of Newfoundland and Labrador with Canada in the
form tabled in these Houses in November of this year.
There has been a lot of debate. Quite frankly, as a product of
that system, I am more than fully persuaded that the amendment is
an appropriate and proper change. I have no hesitation in
recommending it, as I did the previous one, to Parliament.
Although it is different, it is really asking members on both
sides of the House and those in the other place to support it for
the reasons I have given.
I believe, as do most of my colleagues, that the result will be
a better education system for the children of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The case for this amendment requested by the Newfoundland
legislature is compelling in my judgment. Anything which is
unanimous in that House is compelling. I speak also as a
Newfoundlander, as a Canadian and as a member of the Government
of Canada. I am convinced that the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador will be able to provide the children of my province with
a better education if we adopt this amendment.
I have family in Newfoundland who will go through that system.
It is a very personal decision which I have had to come to. Each
time I have examined the pros and cons, and I am pleased to have
heard them again in the House tonight.
I am persuaded on the merits of the amendment. I am persuaded
also that it would not threaten or harm the rights of any other
Canadian. I am persuaded that its adoption would not require a
future Parliament to adopt an amendment which would unacceptably
change the rights of any Canadian.
I am going to vote for it for these reasons and on that basis. I
am going to vote for it because I believe it to be in the best
interests of the children of my riding of
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception and in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe they deserve the best that
the education system of Newfoundland and Labrador can provide. I
believe that this amendment if adopted will help to make this so.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the hon. member could enlighten us as to whether he
knows anything about the members of the legislature of
Newfoundland and their voting patterns. He mentioned that the
vote was unanimous. There must have been among those members
some deeply religious people, perhaps many who had similar
concerns to what we have heard expressed today from some members
of this House.
Does the member opposite have any intimate knowledge or does he
know any of the members of the Newfoundland legislature? Can he
explain why they would have voted for the amendment even though
they have very deeply held religious beliefs?
Hon. Fred Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. Yes, I do know most of the members of the
Newfoundland legislature. I know some of them very well. Some
voted one way in the referendum, but upon reflection when they
returned to look at the system and what the system was trying to
achieve, I think they saw it in a different light. I know one
member who had second thoughts.
Those of us who serve the highest courts in the land whether
they be in the provinces or in this House sometimes have to
decide whether they want to represent the views of their
constituents or the views which they believe they must exercise
on the part of their constituents.
If they are lucky, they will be one and the same. With some
difficulty sometimes they can be different.
1850
I will not prolong the answer, but if I may, the case of capital
punishment I think was an issue where sometimes members of this
House voted with their constituents and other times they voted
with their conscience.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a short question to my colleague whom I have always held
in high regard. I have deep affection for his service to his
community and country.
I come from downtown Toronto and I consider that we are an
advantaged community economically. I have been to the member's
province many times and know of the deep economic pain that
exists in the member's community. Does the member think that the
deep economic pain and the lack of economic resources had
something to do with so many in the minority not supporting their
traditional system?
Hon. Fred Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the
hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood over the years on many
difficult issues and on many difficult subjects. I want to thank
him for the passion that he feels for the subject.
While we agree on most things, there are certain things we do
not agree on. I am not sure how he is going to vote, so I will
not presuppose this, but I do know the hon. member has concerns
with this issue. As I have always done, I respect his concern
for this issue as passionate as his concern is about most issues,
but this one in particular.
When people decide to vote yes or no on any particular issue,
there are many reasons for it. I believe the main reason for the
resounding vote of 73%—and you cannot question the majority of
that—stems mainly from the torment that people had with respect
to putting in place once and for all a system that was more in
line with the rest of the country and in fact in line with the
rest of North America. The system in Newfoundland and Labrador
was unique in all of North America. I know the hon. member knows
that.
There was a torment of those people who had to vote on this
issue to once and for all put in place an educational system
which their children would benefit from. The system would
operate in a clear cut and decisive manner and would avoid this
great discussion for 10 years where we have had yes and no and
referendums and votes in the house of assembly—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, the time
for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate. The
hon. member for North Vancouver.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Kelowna.
The term 17 amendment we are debating today offers an
opportunity for some MPs to take the position that voting their
conscience is appropriate. That was mentioned by the hon.
minister who spoke before me. They do that even if it is
opposite to the position taken by their constituents. They say
they will vote against the amendment for the most part because of
the need to protect minority rights and/or entitlements from the
tyranny of the majority.
Without those MPs being here, there really would not have been
much of a debate so far, so I thank them for that. But as a
result of the position they have taken, they are obliged to
criticize the term 17 referendums and some unfortunately have
been doing so using factually unsupportable material or opinions
that they are representing as fact taken from letters from people
who were disappointed with the result.
If members had taken the time to call the office of Elections
Newfoundland to discuss the mechanics of holding those
referendums, they would have found as I did that a lot of the
criticisms were completely baseless or were totally inaccurate.
1855
Before sharing some of that information with members, I would
first like to remind the House that prior to the first term 17
referendum, seven specific religious groups controlled pretty
much all the public schools in the province. Meanwhile Jews,
Muslims, Baptists and a whole host of other smaller religions,
the true minorities, were deprived of any similar right or access
to the public purse.
The voters of Newfoundland appear to have recognized that this
situation was unfair and have voted to level the playing field
for all religious groups in Newfoundland. They rejected in two
referendums an entrenched entitlement of seven major religions to
reach their hands into the pockets of taxpayers while the other
religions, in fact the minority, had no such right. The changes
contained in the term 17 amendment if anything improved the
situation for minorities.
Furthermore, in terms of those minority rights, the two
referendums on term 17 offered more than enough opportunities for
both sides of the argument to make people aware of their
interpretation of the effects of the proposed changes. The issue
was thoroughly discussed at home, in restaurants, at work, on
television, on radio talk shows. It is insulting to the
intelligence of voters to suggest that they did not understand
what they were voting for or how the rights and entitlements of
majorities and minorities would be affected by their vote.
As for the complaints by critics that a mere 32 days was allowed
for the actual campaign, 32 days is not an unusually short time
for a referendum campaign. The last federal election was only 37
days of campaign and that was to change the entire government of
the country with a multitude of issues and complex judgments that
went along with it. Besides, the term 17 issue had been floating
around under deep public discussion for many years, as has
already been mentioned by other members.
The associated complaint that the government failed to inform
the public of the text of the amendment until August 25, just two
days before the advance poll, also has little relevance in terms
of either the mechanics or outcome. The fact is that the vote
was on the question and not on the legal wording of the amendment
which would enact the question. There was no obligation
whatsoever on the government to produce or release the wording of
the actual amendment at any time and it is questionable how many
voters would have wanted to read it anyway.
To keep this in context, compare the situation to that of
placing a clear question to Quebeckers in any new referendum on
separation. It would be impossible to have a clear question if
you had to put the entire bill on the ballot paper. As I
mentioned, in most cases the average voter is not interested in
reading those legal mechanics anyway.
In the case of the recent term 17 referendum, the text of the
question was released on the very same day the referendum was
announced. The minister who spoke before me read the question
into the record so I will not do that again, but the referendum
related to that question and not to the actual legal wording of
the amendment which was subsequently voted on in the House.
Some members will have received letters complaining that the
Government of Newfoundland used its resources and finances to
support the yes position during the referendum campaign but that
opponents had no such resources and should have been given public
money to fund their opposition. Opponents were completely free
to use their own resources to counter the government position and
they did so. There was no limit to how much they could spend on
their side of the argument and they did advertise and promote
their position very widely just as the government did.
The Newfoundland government said that it spent around $300,000
to promote its position, but the other side to my knowledge has
released no figures. In my opinion there is no convincing
argument to support the contention that opponents to a government
position should be given public funds to counter that position.
If we were to approve of such a measure in general, Canada would
soon be bankrupt and governments would be paralysed by special
interest group activities totally funded from the public purse.
Besides, there is absolutely no evidence in any jurisdiction that
employs public referendums that the amount of money spent on the
issue by one side over the other affects the outcome in any
significant way.
For example, in Canada the Charlottetown accord yes side spent
10 times as much as the winning no side and it still lost. In
the 1993 election the PC Party spent something like $40 million
and had access to huge amounts of free media time but just
elected two members.
The Reform Party spent a fraction of that amount, had hardly any
free media time and elected 52 members.
1900
In Newfoundland, members will be interested to learn, the single
most common complaint received by the chief electoral officer
during both referendums had nothing to do with spending. It was
that too many polling stations were on church property and that
religious symbols, statues and materials were being used in
attempts to influence the vote.
Some of those upset by the outcome of the two referendums have
claimed that the government would not permit scrutineers at the
polling stations, but in fact the government had no power to make
that decision. The determination that scrutineers were not
appropriate was made by the chief electoral officer as authorized
by the Newfoundland elections act.
In the absence of clearly identified yes and no organizations,
the chief electoral officer determined that scrutineers would not
be authorized in the polling stations for either side. He did,
however, provide a returning officer, a deputy returning officer
and an official witness at each polling station. The job of the
official witness was to ensure the security of the vote at each
station, and to date there is no evidence whatsoever of any
tampering.
Some people have criticized the referendum process on the basis
that only 52% of the people voted, that 73% of that 52% voted
yes, and that the equivalent of 39% of eligible voters approved
the question and therefore the results were not valid.
The voter turnout was within normal ranges for this type of
electoral event in Canada. To argue that the result is not valid
leads us down a very slippery slope indeed. Many MPs in the
House were elected with percentages well below 50 and percentages
in the high 30s are not unusual.
The Liberal government won a governing mandate in 1997 with less
than 40% of the vote, a situation that many would argue has a
significantly greater negative impact than an amendment to term
17. Yet it stands. I have yet to observe any government member
arguing that the results of the 1997 election are invalid, even
though the majority of voters actually voted against the
Liberals.
As a dedicated believer in referendums, even those in the form
of an election, I defend the right of taxpayers and voters to
make a mistake; to learn that they made a mistake; and to correct
that mistake, if indeed it was a mistake, via a subsequent
referendum. Such an exercise is in the end far more productive
than having arrogant, self-righteous, genuinely well intentioned,
biased or badly informed politicians forcing their will upon the
people.
As the leader of the Reform Party said earlier today,
Newfoundlanders were well aware the issue involved not only
educational reform but the difficult subject of extinguishing,
granting and balancing majority and minority rights.
Parliament should therefore be very careful in presuming that
its judgment on any of these matters is somehow superior to that
of the people of Newfoundland. Let us respect their
intelligence, their consideration of majority and minority
rights, and their right to make decisions about the way their
province operates its system of education. Let us make sure they
receive from the House an appropriate endorsement of the term 17
amendment.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's remarks and I
would like to put forward a position.
I have always held the view that the Parliament of Canada is a
place where we speak for those who need a voice, those who are
the most disadvantaged, and in this case we know a group in the
province of Newfoundland is having a right diminished by term 17.
Does the member hold the view that we are here to speak for the
advantaged primarily, or does he hold the view that there are
times, even though it may not be popular, when we should consider
speaking for those who do not have a voice?
1905
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a
question which is difficult to answer because he has not used
specific examples other than the Newfoundland referendum issue.
I will refer to a paragraph that I used in my speech. I believe
in the right of people to make a mistake. I truly believe that
in the long run it is a much better experience for politicians
and for people themselves. If they make a decision through the
tool of a referendum we should be obliged to carry out that
requirement. They are the ones paying the bills, and we had
better get used to that. If we are to carry out their will we
must do what we can to provide them with sufficient information
to properly balance opposing points of view.
In the end it is their decision. I defend their right to make
that decision, even to instruct me to do something I do not want
to do, as I did when I voted for the gun control bill in the last
parliament. In the end they will come to see whether or not it
was a mistake, and if it was they will direct me to fix the
mistake.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for North Vancouver. He is probably the
most tenacious and articulate advocate of direct democracy in
this place.
I share much of his commitment to direct democracy. I share the
view, to paraphrase William F. Buckley Junior, that I would
rather be governed by the first thousand people listed in the St.
John's phone book than by the faculty of Memorial University.
Having said that, I do think on matters which affect rights,
acquired rights and constitutional rights, a higher threshold is
sometimes required.
I like to comment on a couple of the member's remarks. As
somewhat of a student of direct democracy and its uses throughout
the world, I find it peculiar the hon. member suggested it was
not necessary for the legal text to be associated with the
question in so far as the referendum was on the question.
The point is that the amendment is before the House. Virtually
every direct democracy statute in the world requires that a bill
or a legal text be put to the people along with the question, and
that was not the case here.
Furthermore, the hon. member spoke quite rightly against public
funding for particular sides in a referendum. I do not believe
the no side should have had funding in this case. I believe the
yes side should have been left to its own resources and not to
have had privileged access to the public purse.
Does the hon. member think he is doing his defence of direct
democracy any good by defending what I would submit were
questionable practices in terms of this referendum?
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, those are good questions. The
member and I have had plenty of discussions in private on this
matter. He knows that I consider these to have been
entitlements, not rights. That is a point of debate and
difference which I know is shared by other members of the House.
Referendums around the world, particularly those initiated by
citizens, rarely have any type of legal text associated with
them. Proposition 13 in California is an example. We can look
at the Swiss models. There is rarely anything other than a
framework of the legal text that is finally put into practice.
I still maintain it is nice to have those tools available. I
would encourage that. It is my understanding that the
Newfoundland government set about doing that as fast as it could
and immediately employed two lawyers to do it. It was released
as quickly as possible. It was not a requirement. I would still
say the average person on the street probably did not place as
much importance on that as they did on the question itself.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to enter the debate on term 17 and its
amendment. My remarks will not be directed toward the democratic
process, the legality of term 17 or the amendment thereof. My
remarks will be focused in an attempt to build the case that the
national interest is being jeopardized by the amendment.
I will do this from three perspectives. The provisions of the
amendment prejudiciously affect the rights of parents to educate
their children, a right which was declared in the 1948 convention
by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It
endorsed the rights of parents by stating that they had a prior
right to choose the kind of education that shall be given their
child.
1910
Second, the political precedent that this creates in Canada
could be significant. I will not dwell on that much more except
to say what I did just now.
Third, it creates a severe problem, maybe a series of problems,
and perhaps even denies the development of a common core of
values and ethics that underlie a democratic form of government.
Turning to the first of these points, the prejudicial effect
toward parents to determine the education of their children, it
expunges the denominational schools but denominational schools
teach a particular set of values and ethics.
The provisions for religious education that are not specific to
a religious democracy are to be clearly differentiated from
courses that have a particular denomination. What is being
proposed is not a denominational kind of religious education but
something else.
The question, then, that needs to be asked is what kind of a
religion course will it be. Will it be the state view of what
religion ought to be? Will it be the presentation of a menu of
values from which individuals may choose whatever they wish?
There is reason to believe that it will probably be the latter.
I refer in particular to the provisions of the Ontario curricula
and here I refer to the common curriculum, policies and outcomes,
Grades 1 to 9, 1995, a document that is in place and operative at
this time, which reads in part:
Adapting to changing attitudes is a difficult process for all of
us and one that can place special demands on students who are
just beginning to develop and test their values. It is
important, therefore, that schools and their programs provide
both clear guidelines and a climate of flexibility and
understanding in which independent thinking can thrive and in
which students can develop values that they themselves consider
relevant for the life they envisage. The common curriculum with
its emphasis on responding to a variety of needs provides the
basis for such a climate.
Two principles emerge from that statement in this curriculum.
The first one is that schools do not teach shared principles or
values. Instead there is a climate of flexible, personal values.
The second principle is that students develop the values which
they choose, based upon their own perception of the relevance of
the values to their lives. This is predicated on the fact that
there is no right or wrong.
Nowhere in the common curriculum is there a statement that
students in grades 1 to 9 in Ontario should be taught right from
wrong. That is a serious implication. It is at the heart of our
justice system and the criminal element in our society. People
should know what is right and what is wrong, particularly at the
beginning of the school system in grades 1 to 9.
Many will argue that values are best transmitted in the family.
I agree. That is the most efficient and the most effective way.
The difficulty is that if a family believes there is a set of
virtues, ethics and values that should be held, the family
challenges the state's view which seeks to impart to the young
that values are after all merely a menu choices and that
individuals are free to pick what is relevant in what they
consider to be relevant for the life they envisage. Such a view
is also supported by at least on supreme court judge who sits
today. That judge states quite bluntly that there should not be
any one conception of the good life.
It is rather clear from such a judge's position that parents
teaching a particular set of values of the good life is
unacceptable. Such a view does not just have implications for
education. It removes the basis on which laws themselves are
formulated. It removes the basis on which one can judge a good
law from a bad law, and it eliminates the distinction between
needs and wants of human beings.
This elimination implies that there is no right desire and there
is no wrong desire. There is then also no need to develop the
ability or the skill to decide what is or what is not a right
desire.
1915
There could have been in the Newfoundland situation an avoidance
of this whole problem. It could have been dealt with if the
opportunity had been presented to the parents to let their tax
dollar follow their child so that the parents would be able to
choose the kind of school that they wanted their children to
attend. That would have avoided the morass that exists there.
I agree the Newfoundland school system was a mess. The
organization and administration was a tremendous problem. I have
known that for a lot longer than this debate has been going on.
That had to be fixed. There was a way to fix it.
We heard many hon. members say the government had no choice.
That is to suggest that the government had no imagination. It
had a choice but it chose not to make that choice. That is what
it did. It chose a particular way and said we had no choice. It
is wrong, it is misleading and it is false.
Quite aside from the need to have a particular teaching of what
is right and wrong in the schools, this also I believe has an
implication for democracy itself.
I would like to suggest that one of the requirements of a
democracy is that children know and be taught a program and the
proper limits of human behaviour. Unless we know what the proper
limits of human behaviour are democracy in itself is in danger.
I am borrowing here to some degree from David Brown, a Toronto
lawyer who specializes in commercial litigation with particular
emphasis on the constitutional provisions in Canada. He says we
need to have recognized that a common set of values is
fundamental to the existence and operation of a democracy.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989
injects legal rights into the relationship between parent and
child. This was ratified in Canada in 1991. Justice Wilson, to
paraphrase this position, observes that these legal rights erects
an invisible fence around each child which parents will not be
allowed to penetrate. We can begin to recognize what the
situation is here. There is now a clear distinction here that
the role of the family in the life of the child is clearly
reduced by the UN convention.
Now we have the strong possibility that term 17 will also have
the effect of reducing the role of the family in the lives of our
children. Why do I say this? There is a contemporary view in
1997 thinking that democracy depends on a core set of values and
ethics to set the proper limits of human behaviour. There is also
historical thinking on the very same point.
In fact, it goes back to 1835 when Alexis Tocqueville travelled
through the North American continent and concluded that in order
for the American business to complete itself and to reach the
proper conclusions of democracy there needed to be a safeguard
and the safeguard came from the religious and ethical beliefs of
the people of America. That is what gave democracy its strength
and that is what gives it its base. That is the foundation on
which our laws rest. That is also the basis on which we can
evaluate a good law compared with a bad law.
On this particular amendment, term 17, to the constitution of
Canada, not now, in fact maybe not for the next two, three or
even five years, but the time is coming when we will point to
this and say that was the beginning of a major rift and a major
problem with the democracy itself in Canada because our
youngsters do not have a clear understanding of what is right and
what is wrong, what is moral, what is ethical and the principles
with which we should govern our behaviour and set limits on our
desires.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I was
confused about the Reform Party's position on this issue before
and now I am fundamentally confused.
1920
Particular religious denominations are essential, not all,
because in Newfoundland we had seven denominations which have
entrenched denominational rights in terms of the educational
system.
In reference to the process of forming legislation and law, what
exactly is the member talking about? I would like to know if
there is such a thing as catholic made criminal law and Jewish
made criminal law and whether he would subscribe to that view or
if there is law in the best interest of society and Canadians,
and that law should apply to all Canadians equally, regardless of
religious background of the drafters of the legislation.
I also ask if views held by constituents are valid only if they
coincide with the views of the members opposite. Clearly this is
a classic example, 73% of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
deciding an issue which is basic to their interests and basic to
their values. They clearly articulated their values. I think we
have some disagreement. We are citing now international charter
on why it should not be imposed.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed having the
hon. member as co-chair of the committee. I learned to respect
him.
I also learned from the question he has just asked that
sometimes he does not listen as well as he should. Had he
listened well he would have heard that I talked not about
catholic laws, not about the values held by the Pentecostals, the
Baptists or any other group. What I said was that for a democracy
to persist and for a democracy to flourish it was necessary to
have a common set of principles, a shared set of values and a
shared set of ethics. That is what I said.
There was no denominational significance given to the particular
set of values but there had to be agreement on what there ought
to be. I will put it in the context of the provision that exists
in Ontario curriculum where there is no such common principle or
set of values.
History has shown that these agreements on the common principles
and values are held within the particular religious groups. Many
of them are shared.
However, to deny them and to simply say you have these
particular sets of values but the school comes along and says
really it does not matter, there is this clarification that takes
place and you can choose any one of them, it does not make any
difference.
It does make a difference and that is the point I was trying to
make. If the hon. member did not understand that, then he has a
problem.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte seems to keep
referring to members of the Reform Party. Maybe he will
understand that this is a free vote where members of different
parties are taking different positions.
To try to take cheap partisan shots and to draw inferences about
what party is supporting what position is totally inappropriate.
I wish the hon. member would be a little more responsible in
conducting himself in this debate.
I gather the hon. member from Okanagan is saying that unless
there is in the school system some way of transmitting the basic
moral values on which any Liberal democracy is founded, they end
up with a kind of relativism which is itself inimical to
democracy, that democracy is based on the understanding of the
inviolable dignity to the human person—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will give the
last few seconds to the member for Kelowna.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, it would not only create
chaos, it would also create a society in which there is so much
conflict that nothing would get done.
What it would do is open the road for tyranny to take place. In
fact, it is a perfect building block for tyrants to become the
governor of the country.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I feel privileged to have the opportunity to participate
in this debate.
This is an issue for me where I have probably as many friends on
the opposite side as I have on the side I am on.
1925
I have always held the view that being a member of Parliament is
a temporal experience. We are only here, even if we are really
lucky, for perhaps a couple of terms and then we are back to our
communities, back with our families on a more regular basis. We
have to sit alone at times and say what did we do when we were
here. Did we stick to our core values, our core principles or
did we forget about them and sort of go along with the flow?
It is terrific to have an opportunity in a debate like this
where it is a free vote. It does take some of the pressure away.
Being government members, we have to be extremely sensitive that
the consensus the government has built or the trust the
government has built to move the agenda of the nation forward is
not fractured in any way, shape or form. But on this motion I
feel we should be concerned.
I have just been given notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will be
sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.
My feeling about this issue is I do not want to get hung up on
the numbers, whether they were 75% or 25% in terms of the vote.
I said earlier in the debate today that I have always taken the
view that we are here to speak for those people who do not have a
voice.
This is an easy town for those who are advantaged. The
lobbying, the hustle, the resources if you are from an advantaged
or favoured group or organization are really not much contest.
The real challenge for us as members of Parliament is when a big
wave is coming at you and it seems that you are out of step with
that wave but you must remember that we are sent here primarily
to speak for that person who really does not have a voice.
I have a view that there are a number of people, and I am not
judging those who take a different path, who share the path that
I am on and who would like to preserve the traditional
denominational system that was in Newfoundland.
I realize quite frankly that if the economy of Newfoundland were
a lot better this would not be a big issue. I can say that
because I can remember many months ago discussing the economics
of this issue with the premier of Newfoundland. He said to me
this is a very expensive system that we have here in
Newfoundland. It is a unique expensive decision. If we had lots
of money this probably would not be such a big issue.
I agree with my friend from Kelowna that we are sometimes driven
here by economics much more than values. We are much more driven
by secularization. That is the current wave that is going
through our system right now.
I had the privilege, and I consider it a real privilege, to have
been associated with a teaching order of priests who started in
this country 147 years ago, the Basilian Fathers. They came from
France. They were invited by the bishop of Toronto, Bishop De
Charbonnel, and they came to teach poor illiterate Irish
immigrants. Over the last 147 years the Basilian Fathers have
developed teaching institutions in every region of this country.
I was privileged to have the opportunity to attend St. Michael's
college school in Toronto and I later attended the Basilian
university in Houston, Texas, St. Thomas.
I would be walking away from the 10 year experience I had with
the Basilian Fathers and all the other lay educators that were
associated with the Basilians if I supported this amendment.
1930
I believe that a Catholic education is not just about teaching
the intellect, it is about teaching the whole person. We are all
human, we all make mistakes, we all fall. But there was a
tremendous experience in being in an environment where the whole
person was being developed.
A denominational institution is different from a
non-denominational institution. I have been associated with both
at the university level. I think that we have a responsibility
and a duty here when we see a right being diminished to say hold
on, do we really need to do this?
If I were to say 75% of the people voted for it and all the
members of the legislature voted for it, then I would be walking
away from all those educators who were a part of my life. I
would be walking away from those educators who are a part of my
son's life. I do not think that would be sticking to my core
principles or values.
Quite frankly, this movement of secularization that is going
through our country right now is all in the name of fiscal
expediency. We tend to cut, shave and eliminate because we do
not have the resources. My goodness, some of the founders of
these traditional educational institutions had more creativity.
Some of them actually taught in barns and did not have half as
much as some of our school boards have today. However that total
experience, the teaching of the whole person was important.
Clause 2 of this term 17 amendment states that the state will
take over the management of the religious opportunity. It just
missed the whole point. This is not about teaching a religious
course. A Catholic education is an experience from the moment
students arrive in the morning until the time they hang up their
football cleats in the locker room. It is the fact that they can
walk down a hall to a chapel. It is the fact that there is a
daily mass. It does not mean they have to go every day, but it
is part of the total environment.
The thing that really burns me deeply about this amendment is
that we are showing a lack of respect for the thousands and
thousands of men and women who dedicated their lives to the
Catholic institutions, the human capital who really became the
backbone of this country, be they Jesuits, Basilians or Sisters
of St. Joseph's, and the ongoing litany of people who worked for
$5 a week. For that reason I will not be supporting this
amendment.
1935
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a
moment to acknowledge the very special and meaningful
conversations the hon. member and I have had regarding this
issue. I respect his position on this. He spoke very eloquently
and from the heart about a number of his own personal
experiences. It has been most important and valuable to me to
hear how he feels about it. I too went through the Catholic
school system. I have a slightly different view than the hon.
member, which we both acknowledge.
There are those in Newfoundland and Labrador who have been
educated through the integrated education system. The integrated
education system is a denominational system. It is basically the
Anglican, United and Salvation Army churches that have come
together and have provided religious education and as well
religious instruction in a way which is not denominationally
based. In fact it is a denominational education classification
but it offers instruction which is not denominationally based.
I wish to point out something about the students who went to an
integrated school next door. I found the moral integrity, the
values that those students held and their personal development to
be quite sound and strong. Frankly, they are very productive
citizens in society. They are participating in a good structure
of society.
Does the hon. member have any particular opinion about whether
or not it is absolutely essential that denominations and
denominations only participate in religious instruction? I found
an example which we used in Newfoundland and Labrador in
providing the current drafting of the term 17 amendment, the
integrated education system, and it works quite well.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Resources. I
concur that we have exchanged productively on this issue.
I am not standing here in judgment of any system that is in
place right now. What I am concerned about and feel strongly
about is a system that was part of the arc of Confederation, to
quote Senator Connolly, and that it was a right that was part of
putting this whole nation together. I see that right being
diminished. I feel there is the possibility that this thought
process of secularization could expand and move to different
regions of the country.
Having said all of that, in no way, shape or form am I judging
the character or the contribution to society and to the country
that any other educational system provides. It is just that I
happen to be partial to the institution which I had the
opportunity to participate in. I know there are many others who
have participated in similar institutions across Canada who share
this view.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in sharing
my conclusions, I would like to address three points dealing essentially
with the motion before us. The first one is the education of French
speaking Newfoundlanders; the second, public support for this amendment;
and finally, our role as parliamentarians, members of the Parliament of
Canada and the House of Commons, with regard to this issue.
On the education of French speaking Newfoundlanders, last year,
when the House first considered this issue as part of an amendment to
term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, I indicated
that my support was largely based on the fact that, in the process, the
Government of Newfoundland would be fulfilling its responsibilities
under section 23 of the charter.
1940
It will be recalled that, with passage of the Constitutional
Act in 1982, section 23 of the charter guaranteed official language
minorities everywhere in the country, from sea to sea to sea, the
right to education in their language. That took a while to happen
in Newfoundland. Here we are in 1997 finally seeing them respect
that right.
Dare I speculate that the need, desire or will of the
Newfoundland government to get term 17 of its union with Canada
modified is in part what made it aware it might get a poorer
reception in Parliament—if I can use that expression here—if it
were not respecting the commitments under section 23 of the
charter?
In this connection I would like to quote a portion of a letter
from Johanne Lacelle to the co-chair of the joint committee. She
was writing on behalf of the Fédération des parents francophones
de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. She said “Since June 1997—not
long ago—francophones in the province have a shools act
guaranteeing complete control over our school system. At last we
can say that language rights are henceforth going to be in line
with section 23 of the charter. School administration is now in
the hands of the francophones. From now on, under this act, the
schools will have the status of non-denominational schools, in
line with the proposed reform the province is calling for”.
From this letter and the fact that the Fédération did not wish
to appear, did not feel the need to appear, I think we may conclude
and state that the francophones of Newfoundland have the management
of their school system under control, and we hope that they may use
this to promote the growth of their community in, as she so aptly
put it, nondenominational schools. This is another element. I do
not think that we have said sufficiently in debates in committee
and here that the francophone population of Newfoundland seems to
agree to having their children educated in nondenominational
schools.
As to the matter of popular will, in committee several
questions were raised regarding public consultation. Some fairly
sharp criticism was directed at the process, the referendum
question and the way it was held.
The results were often interpreted to mean that the minorities had
not agreed to the change. I have a question on that, which has not
really been raised up to now. In my opinion, we should give it
some thought. It concerns the fact that the denominational
classes, if I can call them that, did not insist that the vote be
taken along religious lines.
[English]
If they had wanted to demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt
that their own denomination were opposed to the changes and if
they thought they had a sufficiently large number of people
within their own denomination that would vote against it, then it
behooved the representatives of these denominations to ask that
the vote be done by denominational class, and that was not done.
We were told in committee by the minister responsible for
education that that offer was put on the table, not for this
current vote but for the previous one. The offer was not taken
up nor was it asked for during the last vote that occurred in
early September as a result of the campaign in August.
This is a situation in which those who argue that the minorities
did not give their consent to this could have found a way to
demonstrate that, yet they failed to even ask for that to be
done. They could have been clamouring for this to be done, to
have all the Pentecostal votes identified. When someone voted
they could have said that they were Catholic or that they were
such and such.
We do that all the time in Ontario municipal elections when we
cast a ballot, yet that was not put forward. It was not
requested. I suspect that suggests quite a bit.
1945
We can read into this what we wish. I have read into it that
perhaps there is a consensus, even within the denominations, for
a change to the system in many instances. Perhaps not in all of
them, but in some of them I would suspect that the reason there
of no insistence for such a vote was because the result may have
been somewhat other than some people of those denominations would
have wanted to see.
I wanted to put this on the floor so that members who are
opposing it on the grounds that the minorities did not give their
consent can reflect on it.
Finally, I want to address what our role is as parliamentarians.
It is definitely not to rubber stamp. I am very pleased that the
three votes in which I have been involved in my short time here
which have dealt with constitutional amendments using section 43
of the 1982 act have all been free votes. It speaks very well of
the seriousness with which we address these issues. We rise
above partisan considerations. Free votes force members to think
about the issue. It removes the cushion, if you will, of the
whipped vote. We have to be accountable for our votes. I
believe that is the way which we as parliamentarians should
address a constitutional change.
Although our role is not to rubber stamp, it is certainly not to
be systematically opposed. I have had a chance in recent weeks to
sit on two committees, the one studying the bilateral
constitutional amendment for the Quebec school boards and this
one. I have been pleased with the approach taken by all parties
and all representatives of both Houses.
This method of helping our country, of ensuring that some
systems and some of our institutions evolve, is very good.
Perhaps it has not been anticipated to be that useful, but it is
certainly turning out to be that way. I want to encourage the
parliaments of Canada to realize that there are certain ways of
making systems and some of our institutions progress.
[Translation]
It is not our duty, as I have pointed out, to systematically
oppose or blindly approve recommendations put to us. But, having
sat on the committee, listened to witnesses and considered all the
arguments, I think we can say without fear of error that the
amendment is put to us with the approval of the people of
Newfoundland and certainly the unanimous approval of the
Newfoundland legislature, which is not to be sniffed at, and is one
of the most important factors to be considered.
That having been said, I have absolutely no qualms about
supporting and encouraging my colleagues to support the proposal
before us.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
will come as no great surprise when I tell you that, like my
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and other parties in the House, I
will be enthusiastically supporting the constitutional amendment
before us.
I wish to emphasize that this is a constitutional amendment.
It would obviously be misleading to those listening if the full
significance of the debate today, and for a number of days now,
were not made clear. When we speak about a constitutional
amendment, the first thing that should be said is that a
constitution is the supreme law of a nation. There are two kinds
of constitution. Canada has what is described as a written
constitution. There are basically five ways of amending it. The
constitutional amendment before us is made possible through section
43.
1950
Section 43, the constitutional amendment we are debating, is
a bilateral constitutional amendment. This means that it is
possible for a province, in an area under its jurisdiction,
therefore in an area mentioned in section 92 or section 93, to
amend the text of the Constitution with the consent of both Houses.
I think it is also worth pointing out that federalism has
three main features. A system is described as federal when there
is a constitution and a division of powers between lower and higher
levels. The third feature is obviously a court of justice that
arbitrates disputes or challenges that may arise between partners
in the Constitution.
This gives us some idea of the system in which we live.
The Government of Newfoundland, headed by the former Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans of this government, is asking to be allowed, for
all intents and purposes, to establish a public school system. Some
people might be tempted to do certain things, but not you, Mr. Speaker,
because I know you are a sensible and informed person. I remind our
viewers that, throughout your childhood, not that long ago, you took
great pleasure in reading constitutional law treaties. This kept you
away from the more “in” crowd, but turned you into a well-informed legal
expert.
This having been said, the issue here is really to establish a
public, non-denominational school system in Newfoundland, the last
province to join Confederation, in 1949, under the leadership of Joey
Smallwood.
When we consider these issues, we have to keep two things in mind.
Confederation was initially made up of four provinces. All the provinces
that joined afterwards had clauses protecting minority rights regarding
schools. The provinces can be divided in two large groups: those that
adhered to section 93, and those that obtained other specific rights. In
the case of Newfoundland, it is not section 93 that applies, but term
17.
It should also be mentioned that, as regards term 17, which is the
clause governing the terms of the union of Newfoundland with the
Dominion of Canada—as our country was called back then—there are
three major aspects. First, as we mentioned, term 17 refers to an
exclusively denominational school system. Just think of what Quebec did
in the sixties—this incredible period of change called the quiet
revolution, after an English speaking journalist coined the phrase.
Quebec asked the clergy to withdraw from the school system, which is
what is now happening in Newfoundland. Indeed, the idea is not only to
create non-denominational structures, but to establish a public school
system. In other words, linguistic rights are not the issue here.
These are not religious rights. We will come back to this later, but
these are indeed rights related to access to education and the
organization of a public system.
First, this was a province that did not have a public education
system when it signed the treaty in 1867. Second, there were seven major
denominations representing 90% of the population. I can name them to
show the extent of the denominations involved.
1955
There was, of course, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the
Salvation Army, the United Church, the Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics
and the Seventh-Day Adventists. You can easily imagine how this kind of
religious mosaic resulted in a rather fragmented school system. In this
respect, one of the forms this fragmentation took, which may seem
unimportant but can be extremely important in relation to the students'
quality of life, was described by parents in the evidence they
presented, which I would now like to share with you.
This evidence can be found in the report tabled by the joint
committee.
I will repeat for the benefit of our viewers that there are two kinds of
parliamentary committees: the standing committees such as the justice
committee, the agriculture committee and the environment committee,
which are mandated to review certain bills, and the joint committees
made up of representatives of this House and the other place, better
known as the Senate.
Let me read the testimony of a parent reminding us of one of the
problems posed, if only from a transportation point of view, by
maintaining a system with seven different denominations, in which there
are essentially no neighbourhood schools. The fact that you live next to
a school does not mean that your child can enrol in that particular
school, since enrolment is based on the religion declared by the
parents.
One of the parents in the Education First group told of the
case of a child who could walk to primary school. Now that she is
in seventh grade, however, she has to leave home at 7.30 a.m. and
take the bus. Within ten minutes she passes a Catholic school.
After 20 minutes, she goes past another school. Both offer seventh
grade. Finally she goes past a third school, which offers grades
seven to nine, before she reaches her school an hour after leaving
home.
So one of the striking elements in the organization of the
Newfoundland system is the distances children face in registering
not at a neighbourhood school, but at one that provides religious
education in the faith of their parents. This is what they are
going to put an end to.
Those who would be tempted to think this is a recent debate in
Newfoundland should remember that it has gone on since 1990.
It is not recent. Its roots warrant mentioning.
In 1990, a commission of inquiry was set up to consider the
future of the Newfoundland education system. You know, Mr.
Speaker, how important education is to a society. You know,
because your education is not lacking, you have a higher education.
I have been told in fact that you were always at the top of your
class. I have not checked personally, but you are sufficiently
talented for me to believe it. Education is important. It is
important because it helps socialize, but it inculcates values.
When we want to find out a society's most commonly held values, we
must look to the schools. Not only do they teach values, but they
foster learning.
And generally, not just any sort of learning, but learning that
provides a competitive edge on the job market and that provides
access to the labour force.
It is vital to a society. I think the Government of
Newfoundland, for partisan considerations, is right to be concerned
about the efficiency of its school system.
That is what the commission of inquiry said. In the early 1990s,
it concluded that it was important for the future, for the future
of the young students of Newfoundland, for there to be an
integrated system with shared schools.
2000
After that came a lengthy process. First of all, in 1995-96,
there was a first referendum. You know what aphrodisiac powers
that word has in this House, it is a word that gets the government
all excited. Governments get excited any chance they get, and we
are dealing now with one that gets really hot and bothered at the
mere mention of the word referendum.
So, there was a first one, to be followed by a second in which
Mr. Tobin's government attempted to strike a compromise between a
system of education I would qualify as a hybrid, a combination of
separate schools and the right of certain religious denominations
to be heard. In that referendum, 54% supported the government
resolution.
Why do I feel obliged to specify this? First of all, because
I am reminding you that this is a debate that has been discussed in
Newfoundland since the early 1990s. Second, because there have
been consultations of all sorts. There were public hearings, two
referendums, not one but two. The first was in 1995, at which time
54% of Newfoundlanders voted yes.
It is interesting, strictly from the constitutional point of
view, because I would remind you that what we are dealing with here
is a constitutional amendment.
It is therefore an amendment that will change the most important
document of a country, its supreme law, its constitution. The
government of the time, the same one as today, responded favourably
to this constitutional amendment.
But it is interesting to recall that it was not two-thirds,
not 70% of Newfoundlanders, who voted yes, but 54% at the outside.
The government, led by the same Prime Minister guiding our
destinies today, followed up on this resolution. It wrote to the
Premier of Newfoundland to tell him that, in January 1996, it would
introduce a resolution asking parliamentarians in the House of
Commons and the Senate to approve the resolution.
I want to remind you that this therefore means that the figure
of 50% is acceptable in a referendum because, in a democracy,
whatever is said and done, it is the majority that rules.
When the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs ventures to tell us,
in his sometimes high and mighty way, that 50% is not enough in the
case of Quebec, of national unity, I think we must remind him, in
all fairness, that there is a precedent.
There was a referendum in 1995. Naturally, there was a debate
in the House in 1996, and we went along, both in the House of
Commons and in the Senate, with the resolution introduced by the
government. This was followed by a court challenge by two
religious denominations in Newfoundland. They challenged not
stricto sensu the constitutional amendment, but the new public
education act.
There was an injunction. We know how radical a process that
is, with its immediate impact.
The supreme court of Newfoundland ruled in their favour. This had
the result of halting the process of reform in which the
Newfoundland government of Brian Tobin was intensely involved.
In this context, the premier then and now, the former Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, whom you remember fondly, I believe, Mr.
Speaker, decided to hold a referendum on September 2.
2005
The referendum was on a clear question, a question such as we like
them, that is a question which is immediately understandable when you
read it, a question which is unequivocal. So, allow me to read it for
the benefit of those who may not have done so. The provincial government
complied with the conditions of the injunction.
It announced on July 31, 1997, through its most important citizen, the
premier of the province, that a referendum would be held on September 2,
and that the question would be: “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 question was clear.
Of course, the question triggered a debate. The debate was not like
the one in Quebec, since there is no requirement under Newfoundland's
referendum act, which is in fact an election act, because there is no
specific referendum act. So, a debate took place, thus giving the public
an opportunity to discuss what was at stake.
When the referendum was over—and I hope this will happen to us
some day—73% of voters had said yes.
So, 73% of them authorized the Tobin government to conduct an in-depth
review of the school system with a view to establishing amalgamated,
non-denominational schools where religious education will be permitted
as requested by parents. That is where we are at.
Following this referendum, as required by procedure, another
resolution was tabled by the executive, which had to be debated by both
Parliaments. This debate led to the establishment of a joint committee
and, today, as parliamentarians, we must vote either in favour of or
against this resolution. It is interesting because the Newfoundland
situation reminds us of the need to modernize the school system, of
course, but also of minority rights. It does not deal substantially with
linguistic rights, section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or even
religious rights.
It deals with the right to reorganize the school system.
In spite of the fact that consultations, two referendums, were held
and that this debate had been going on since 1990, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, with his stubbornness that borders on
neurosis at times, nevertheless insisted on consultations being
conducted. We went along with this little game and were represented in
the process by the dynamic Bloc Quebecois member for Témiscamingue.
We will support this amendment because we believe that, in a
democracy, the voice of reason is always that of the majority. In this
case, we are talking about an indisputable majority, since 73% approved
the government resolution.
I know that, in a not so distant future, when we consider other
referendum results, we will remember the precedents created on this
occasion.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
the hon. member. In 1987 the Premier of Newfoundland made
specific requests in the Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland to
constitutionally entrench the rights of the Pentecostals forever.
He made a permanent gesture for the Pentecostals in the province
of Newfoundland.
Would the member comment on his impression of what a permanent
constitutional entrenchment would be and whether the permanent
constitutional entrenchment of a minority as in the case of the
Pentecostals should be extinguished by the majority?
2010
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the hon. member's
interest in these matters, and I thank him.
The Pentecostals make up 7% of the population of Newfoundland.
It could no doubt be recalled that, where constitutional law is
concerned, a minority cannot be subordinated to a majority. I am
prepared to admit, with the hon. member, that there is an
obligation in a civilized society to ensure that minorities are
adequately protected.
What is involved here, however, is the right of a government
to modernize its educational system, because this is first and
foremost an amendment to ensure that the Newfoundland school system
will enter the 21st century as more modern, more efficient, more
responsive to the needs of the labour market.
I am tempted to answer my colleague's question with another
question. Does he believe that constitutions are immutable? I
myself believe that they must adjust to society, that constitutions
must adjust to individuals. There is no reason to believe that a
constitution or a constitutional amendment is immutable. Such
logic would tie our hands and preclude any possibility of change.
What has to be taken into consideration, what we must ask
ourselves as parliamentarians, is the following: Did the
Pentecostals have the opportunity to make their points of view
known? Are there sufficient guarantees that minorities were
consulted and are in favour of the constitutional amendment?
I would remind the hon. member that the two Pentecostal MLAs
in Newfoundland voted in favour of the government resolution. I
believe that this is the best guarantee available to us to conclude
that a democratic debate has taken place and that all minorities
had a chance to make their views heard.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will answer the hon. member's question. If the minority is being
particularly entrenched in the constitution in a special fashion,
which it was by the Newfoundland legislature, particularly
mentioning Pentecostal and to be entrenched forever, the way to
remove that entrenchment would be to consult that minority and
have that minority's agreement or consent in some form to remove
it.
Because it is specifically toward that minority I would think
that minority must be approached to remove it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's
point of view. It is a testament to his sensitivity.
I want to remind him that, when his leader spoke, not so long
ago, about Quebec's section 93 amendment, one of the pre-conditions
he set for parliamentary approval of a constitutional amendment was
that a referendum be held, that there be extensive public
consultations. I believe that these conditions have been met in
the case before us.
Finally, I have trouble seeing how the Reform Party's logic
will allow it to vote in favour of a constitutional amendment
since, even in very extreme cases, less ambiguous cases where there
was public debate, where two referendums were held, where 73% of
people voted in favour, and there are not many democracies that can
lay claim to that high a percentage of voters in favour of any
subject, they are not persuaded.
So I ask my Reform colleague what will be the standard, the
criterion that will satisfy these people constitutionally that they
may approve an amendment requested by a province if, when 73% of
the public has voted in favour, they rise in the House and say nay?
2015
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise and participate in today's very important debate.
I was a member of the special committee that studied term 17,
that listened to representations from the people of Newfoundland
and from others who are concerned about the amendment that is
before this House. I thought I would begin my remarks today by
sharing with this House and the people who are watching the
debate some of the things that I learned while I was on the
committee.
How did we get to where we are today? Why is Newfoundland and
Labrador requesting this change to their terms of agreement,
specifically to term 17? The reason that they are requesting
this is because they want to change their school system. I found
that Newfoundland and Labrador is the only jurisdiction in
Canada, in fact the only jurisdiction in North America, that does
not have a public school system.
Newfoundland and Labrador does not have a non-denominational
school system. If you want to go to school in Newfoundland and
Labrador, you must attend one of the schools run by one of the
church groups that has denominational rights in Newfoundland.
Is there anything wrong with that? Well, it has caused problems
in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has caused problems because
often children or the parents of those children want the child to
be able to go to the school across the street, but in order to
register for a school in Newfoundland and Labrador, you have to
take your birth certificate. You have to tell them what religion
you are and the schools will accommodate first all of the
children from that religious community and then, if there is
space available, they will accept the children who are not from
that denomination.
You have the situation where too often, too commonly, children
are forced on to buses, pass several schools and can sit on that
bus half an hour to an hour. We heard of students who spend
three hours of their school day sitting on buses. We heard of
students who could not participate in extra-curricular activities
unless they could arrange for a lift home after school.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been debating the
type of school system that they want for their children for over
10 years. We heard from people who made representations to our
committee that it has been a difficult and divisive debate. We
heard that eight years ago there was a royal commission and we
were told that the recommendation of that royal commission some
eight years ago was in fact the change that is before this House
of Commons, this Parliament, this Senate.
Think about that. Ten years ago the debate began. Eight years
ago a royal commission recommended that term 17 be changed so
that Newfoundland and Labrador could have a non-denominational
school system. What happened in those intervening years since
that royal commission?
What happened was debate, hot and heavy, passionate debate. That
debate culminated and a compromise was proposed by the former
premier Clyde Wells, someone who I did not always agree with, I
have to tell this House. We did not see eye to eye on
everything.
Premier Wells proposed a compromise and the debate that ensued
on the compromise was a difficult and divisive debate. A strange
thing happened in Newfoundland and Labrador. That debate became
a non-partisan debate and at the end of that debate on the
compromise, after listening to all sides, after a referendum that
we heard at committee was confusing because it was by its very
nature a compromise, we heard that there was a unanimous free
vote in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly.
As the compromise solution, the previous changes to term 17, was
being implemented, problems arose.
2020
Some of those who opposed the compromise took the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to court. In the court's wisdom, the
compromise was struck down. The premier of Newfoundland, now
Premier Tobin, went back to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador on July 31, 1997, days after the court struck down the
decision on the previous amendment on term 17. Within days he
said we were going to have a clear question. We are going to ask
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if they are prepared to
support a change, a very significant change. We are going to ask
them if they support a change from a denominational school system
to a non-denominational public school system. We are going to
ask them if they want to have religious course offered within
that school system, but they will be non-specific,
non-denominational religious courses on world religion. That was
a very clear question.
What I discovered was that the same percentage of people in
Newfoundland and Labrador who voted in the referendum that was
held on September 2 voted in the last federal election. It is
true the voter turnout was not high. It was not 80% or 70%, but
it was a clear majority. Fifty-three per cent of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador went out to vote in this most important
referendum, a similar number and a similar percentage as had
voted last June 2 in the federal election.
Of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who went to vote on
September 2, 73% of them supported the clear question which was
asked in the referendum by their government. They said we
support change in Newfoundland, we support a change from
denominational schools to public non-denominational schools. They
said that clearly, they said it loudly and they said it after
almost 10 years of public discussion and public debate.
What I found most compelling as I listened carefully to the
passionate and anguished presentations that came before our
committee was that the ensuing debate in the national assembly
was again a non-partisan debate. No one questioned the other's
motives. No one attempted to take political advantage. Everyone
said, what is in the interests of our students? What is in the
interests of quality education for those students? In
Newfoundland and Labrador, which is not the richest province in
this land, they said what is in the interest of cost effective
quality education in Newfoundland?
We heard that time and again from people who came before the
committee. What the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted
for was an end to the chaos, an end to the debate which had
divided communities, an the end to the debate which was divisive
and difficult for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
What they came before our committee and asked for was a
resolution. Those people who came before the committee were not
unanimous in their support. In all of my almost 20 years in
public life, I rarely have seen an issue where there is unanimous
support. In fact I have said, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to
say it is a controversial issue because if it is not
controversial, it is not an issue. If there is unanimous
support, it is not an issue. What makes it an issue is that not
everyone agrees.
2025
They come to this House on this day and say can we in Canada be
responsive to a province that has had a history such as
Newfoundland and Labrador, which is unique, different? Certainly
Newfoundland and Labrador's history when it comes to education is
different from that of any other province in this country.
I have said to my constituents in Thornhill, to those who have
expressed concerns about what is happening in Newfoundland and
Labrador, that there are more differences than there are
similarities between the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador
and the situation in Ontario.
I do not believe that what we are doing in this Parliament is
going to in any way set a precedent for any other province,
particularly the province of Ontario. I do not believe it. I do
not believe it because Ontario has a very different history than
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Ontario has a very different education system than exists in
Newfoundland and Labrador today. Ontario does not have the same
kind of terms of union that Newfoundland and Labrador are trying
to change.
To those people who are raising concerns that what we do in this
House on term 17 may in the future have some negative
implications for other provinces, may in the future have
established a precedent, I say to them that the only precedent
that changes to term 17 will create in my opinion is the
precedent that says in Canada changes to our constitution are
possible.
Our constitution is a living document. It is not carved in
stone. It can be responsive to the needs of individual
provinces. It can respond and it can be flexible. It is not
difficult to understand why there are those who, for their own
reasons, resist change.
Certainly I understand that those who have the power to control
the school systems do not want to see that changed. I understand
that. It is difficult to make change in a constitution.
This country has struggled with the desire for that change over
the course of its history, but if ever there was a clear example
of when this Parliament should be responsive to a request from
the provinces, if there was ever an example of due process having
taken place, of the expression of will from the people at a
non-partisan free vote again in the Newfoundland House of
Assembly, this change to term 17 is the very best example.
After the referendum where 73% of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador said that they want this change on a clear question,
there was a non-partisan free vote, unanimous, in the
Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly.
The Conservatives supported it. The NDP supported it. The one
independent member of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of
Assembly who represents a significant Métis and aboriginal
constituency supported it. Yes, the Liberal government and all
the members of that House, be they Pentecostals, be they
catholics, be they any religion under the sun or no religion,
they all supported this.
Do members know why? I believe it is because they all want what
is best for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. They want
to be able to use their resources in the most cost-effective way
that will give their students the best possible quality education
and the best possible chance for success in the future.
I urge the members of this House to listen to the voice that has
been tortured.
We heard from one delegation that they had been tortured in this
debate for a decade.
2030
Let us help them put this into their history. If we do not pass
this resolution expeditiously in the House they will not be
prepared to look after their students come next September. It is
irresponsible not to move forward if we care about the students
of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we care that they will have the
opportunity to receive the best quality, cost effective education
that can be provided in that province. Let us give those kids a
chance. Let the province get past this.
After sitting on the committee, I believe its majority report is
the best thing for Canada and for Newfoundland and Labrador. I
hope members of the House will support it.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I need a
little clarification. The hon. member opposite indicated that
someone was tortured. I hope that was not in the physical sense.
Hopefully it was only in the mental sense.
Since it was a phrase used in the middle of her ideas without
connecting ideas, who specifically was tortured and by whom?
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to clarify
this point for the member. If he checks the committee
proceedings he will see that a delegation of parents came before
the committee and said that they felt this debate had tortured
the community.
Yes, it was mental torture. It was anguish and it was anxiety.
It was worry about the students and their future. It was about
the divisiveness within the community which divided friends. It
was cruel, mental torture.
I am not saying it. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
the parents who came before the committee, used that word. They
also used the words “chaos” and “divisiveness”. These
difficult expressive words spoke volumes.
I hope the member who asked this important question will talk to
his colleagues so that we can respond in a positive way to those
people in Newfoundland and Labrador who have felt tortured by
this debate and help them to put this in their history books and
move beyond it.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to rise in debate on the resolution to
amend term 17. I sat as an associate member on the joint special
parliamentary committee dealing with this term. I would first
like to recognize that it is an extraordinarily difficult issue
requiring the wisdom of Solomon to determine how to vote on this
matter. I appreciate the fact that it appears to be a free vote
in every caucus.
In my remarks I will not be speaking on behalf of my party but
rather with respect to my own conscience as it was formed in the
process of those hearings and through the contact I have had with
many people in Newfoundland.
I would like to comment on the very passionate remarks of the
hon. member who preceded me. She spoke about deep divisions in
Newfoundland and the witnesses who appeared at the joint
committee speaking about the “torture” they underwent over this
ongoing and divisive debate.
Many of the witnesses that appeared before the committee
expressed deep and passionately held views in opposition to this
proposed term. They are among the minority, perhaps the minority
of the minority but a minority nevertheless, who feel that this
amendment would alienate from them a constitutional right which
is central to their privileges as citizens of Canada and of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
By no means is there unanimity in Newfoundland with respect to
this amendment. In fact every Newfoundlander I have heard from
directly as a member of Parliament has been encouraging me to
exercise our constitutional authority to oppose this application.
2035
I rise not to oppose a unanimous consensus of the province of
Newfoundland but rather to speak on behalf of the small number of
people in that province who feel their minority rights are being
trounced upon by the process in which we are now engaged.
What does this amendment do? It replaces the original term 17
that was entered into the constitution at the time of
confederation of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949, with a new
term which would continue to recognize education as a provincial
responsibility, and quite rightly so, and which would remove
forever and extinguish permanently the denominational right to
govern schools and school systems in a denominational character
that was enshrined in 1949.
It would replace those rights with a general guarantee of access
to courses in religion that are not specific to a religious
denomination and in section 3 to religious observances that shall
be permitted in a school where requested by parents. Let us be
quite clear about what this does. It removes a right.
Some of the proponents of this amendment will say that we are
not talking about minority rights because, after all, 97% of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians come under the coverage of the
seven denominations affected. I think that is really
pettifogging. I think it is quibbling with constitutional
concepts. Whether it is minority rights, religious rights,
acquired rights, vested rights or entrenched rights does not
matter one whit.
To quote from an esteemed member of the House, the hon. member
for Lac-Saint-Louis, in the debate on a similar initiative in the
Quebec legislature many years ago, “rights are rights are
rights”. I do not care how we cut them up, how we parse them,
what terminology we apply, we are talking about guarantees that
were extended to certain communities in the formation of the
country, in this case in the incorporation of Newfoundland into
this great country.
What kind of rights are we talking about when it comes to the
rights of parents to direct their children in a particular
religious tradition? The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and many proponents of this amendment have said that the right to
publicly funded denominational education does not constitute a
fundamental right as long as parents have access to that kind of
education, be it privately funded or otherwise.
In other words, they say that this is not like the right to
exercise religion or the right to freedom of expression, which
they argue are fundamental rights. Instead they suggest we are
dealing with an entitlement, namely the entitlement to use the
public purse to finance denominational education.
I beg to differ, and in so doing I would like to refer to the
universal declaration of human rights from 1948, a document which
came out of the atrocious circumstances and the lessons of the
second world war. The world gathered together in an effort to
define once and for all what constituted basic human rights.
Article 26 of that declaration stated that everyone “has the
right to education. Education shall be free at least in the
elementary and fundamental stages”.
It went on to say under subsection 2 that “education shall be
directed to the full development of the human personality and to
the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms”. Under section 3 it stated that “parents have a
prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given
to their children”. It defines education as education that
shall be free; in other words, publicly funded education at least
in the elementary and fundamental stages.
It went on to say that such education will be directed by parents
who have a prior right to choose what kind of education they
shall receive.
2040
This principle was further enunciated in the international
covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in 1966, wherein
article 13 recognized “the right of everyone to education”. It
further stated that primary education shall be compulsory and
available free to all, and that the states and parties to the
covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents to
ensure the religious and moral education of their children in
conformity with their own convictions.
I refer to the 1976 international covenant on civil and
political rights which stated in article 18 that everyone shall
have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Under section 4 it stated that the states and parties to the
present covenant undertook to have respect for the liberty of
parents, and when applicable legal guardians, to ensure the
religious and moral education of their children in conformity
with their own convictions.
The point is that we are not talking about a mere privilege or a
mere entitlement. The right to direct education, as has been
understood through these international covenants, means the right
to access publicly funded education, free education at least at
the elementary stage, which reflects the convictions of parents.
The abolition of the denominational school guarantees in term 17
means the abolition of those rights as defined by these
international covenants. I think that is very grave indeed.
That is why we need a very high standard to alienate such
rights. I would argue that the only such standard would be that
the groups affected, be they minorities or majorities, indicate
their consent to the removal of such rights. I submit that in
the referendum, the unanimous vote of the Newfoundland
legislature notwithstanding, such consent was not absolutely
clear. Why do I say that?
We are dealing not with one monolithic group of citizens
affected. We are dealing with eight denominational groups that
are affected. Each one of those groups has a claim to this
fundamental right. It would not be appropriate for a majority of
people from different denominations to alienate the rights of a
minority of others.
For instance, it was generally accepted in the hearings of the
joint committee that the Pentecostal people of Newfoundland and
Labrador did not give their consent in the referendum and did not
give it in the consultations, and that they voted in the majority
in the referendum against the application.
There was also considerable debate as to whether or not the
considerably large catholic community of Newfoundland supported
this amendment. While there is some evidence that a majority of
nominal catholics may have done so in the referendum, there is no
way to measure whether a majority of practising catholics gave
such assent. One thing that is evident is that the institutional
church, the Newfoundland Conference of Catholic Bishops, is
clearly outspokenly opposed to this amendment.
I would also mention parenthetically that it was very
unfortunate the joint committee chose not to hear representatives
of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and
representatives of other organizations such as the Catholic Civil
Rights League that would have spoken to the national implications
of this amendment. Why else do I question the assertion that the
affected groups have given their assent to this amendment?
I think the referendum was conducted in an atrocious manner. By
that I do not mean to say the people of Newfoundland did not know
what they were voting on or were somehow voting in mass sequence.
That is not my suggestion.
My suggestion is that the Government of Newfoundland was
irresponsible in the manner in which it conducted this referendum
and that it conducted it contrary to the basic principles of
direct democracy reflected in referenda statutes throughout the
world.
2045
Among other things it has been noted in the debate today that
the question was released only 32 days before the referendum. The
legal text was released two days before the advance polls opened
and only a week before the vote itself occurred. I recall in
debate on the Charlottetown accord during the referendum in 1992
that Canadians from coast to coast expressed huge anger that they
had not seen the legal text of that accord three or four weeks
before the referendum.
In this case, Newfoundlanders did not see it until a couple of
days before they went to the polls. And most importantly, when
the legal text was released it reflected a substantive difference
from the question that was put on the ballot and to
Newfoundlanders four weeks before that time.
The question stated: 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 observance are provided? I am reading from an
advertisement the government put out called “A Straightforward
Referendum Question” and it seems straightforward enough.
But when the government released the legal text, section 2 of
the proposed new term 17 made it clear that such courses in
religion are not specific to a religious denomination, an
essential qualifier, a caveat which was not reflected in the
question. Section 3 of the legal text states that religious
observances shall be permitted in the school requested by
parents, presumably qualified as well as religious observances
that are not specific to a particular denomination.
Many Newfoundlanders who approached me and the committee said
that the question they were asked implied that the protection of
religious education meant the kind of religious education they
conventionally understood to be religious, namely denominational
education. But the government pulled a fast one by saying that
such education would not be denominational in character. I and
many people in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador believe
that non-denominational religious education really is not
religious education and therefore the question was misleading.
I also object to the government's direct intervention in the
referendum. The government used the apparatus of the state and
public tax dollars to support the yes side of the referendum. One
principle which is consistent to direct democracy legislation
around the world is that the state must remain neutral on these
matters.
The government, that is to say the premier, his cabinet and his
caucus, may take a particular position and can get on their
soapbox, television or on talk shows and argue their position
persuasively. But to use tax dollars for the benefit of one side
is to unfairly outweigh the outcome, and more importantly is to
infringe on the basic principle of liberal democracy as best
expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the preamble to the Virginia
Statute on Religious Freedom which states that to compel a man to
finance ideas which he abhors is both sinful and tyrannical.
That principle was enshrined at the birth of liberal democracy,
that the state must remain neutral when it comes to basic
political and moral differences. That was a principle not
recognized by the Government of Newfoundland which spent $350,000
tax dollars on one side of the referendum while the no advocates
had no such access to public resources.
I say this as a very strong advocate of direct democracy and
referenda, someone who is somewhat of an amateur student of
direct democracy. I find this offensive. If we blindly assume
the legitimacy of this referendum, we are lowering the standard
of what constitutes legitimate conduct in a referendum and it is
not something I think we should do.
2050
Many of those who have argued in favour of this amendment say
that what it really tries to do is to enshrine pluralism, to
reflect the important Canadian value of pluralism in the
education system in Newfoundland. They claim that among other
things there are groups such Baptists and the Jewish community
who have no access to denominational education under the original
term 17.
I agree it is a legitimate concern. But the proper remedy to
that problem is not to extinguish the rights for those who
currently hold those rights. It is to expand those rights. A
liberal democracy does not create equality by removing rights for
some. It creates greater equality by extending those rights to
all.
What the Newfoundland government ought to have done in this case
in my view is to propose an amendment to the term which would
have included a generic right to denominational education. That
would have satisfied the interests of equality but instead some
people will end up paying the price by not having access to such
education.
Those who will pay the price the most are poor people. I want
to make this point. The wealthy can afford to send their
children to private schools but it is the most disadvantaged, and
we know that Newfoundland is a disadvantaged province, where
parents cannot afford the extra $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 to send
their children to a private school which is in keeping with their
values.
So what about the courses in religion and religious observances
provided for in the proposed new term? My concern and that of
many Newfoundlanders is that these courses in religion, these
non-denominational generic courses will in fact be specific to a
particular world view, a world view that might generally be
called the secularist world view, a world view which sees no
important ultimate distinctions in the truth claims of various
religions.
In other words the courses that are implied by this term will
not be courses in religion as conventionally understood. They
could very well become courses in religious syncretism and
indifferentism undergirded by a philosophy of moral relativism.
That is to say philosophies which negate the possibility of
objective ultimate truth on matters of life and death, on
metaphysical matters, on matters of religion.
To tell a Catholic parent or a Pentecostal parent or some other
parent who comes from a particular religious tradition that they
will have access to religious education and that they should not
worry is not adequate. They are concerned that their moral views
will be offended by their children by schools providing this—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments, the hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
intrigued with the path the member is taking on this argument.
It is one I think has been quite widely missed in the debate so
far this day. That is the intense belief system that people have
and want to teach to their children. I wonder if he would enlarge
more on that aspect of it.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, yes I can enlarge on it.
The point is that religious syncretism which is implied by the
new non-denominational courses in religion under the proposed new
term is contrary to the basic values that many families hold. The
values they hold are to look at the world from a particular
religious perspective rooted in tradition in many cases going
back 2,000 years.
For those people to have to send their children to a school
where they are going to be taught that there really is no
difference between the religions, that all the truth claims of
all the religions are irrelevant and illegitimate, that they can
pick and choose between the moral values which will guide their
lives is offensive. That is why so many parents oppose this.
I would like to make one other point in reference to the hon.
member's question. This is the point of pluralism.
What we are doing with this amendment is to impose a monistic
system of education, that is to say, a one world view system of
education which is inimical to the pluralism which is
supposedly a value that is so important to this country.
2055
Pluralism means in the words of Edmund Burke that you have many
different little platoons in civil society, people coming
together around common convictions in different church groups.
That is what is reflected in the current education system in
Newfoundland.
What we want is pluralism, not a monolithic cookie cutter
stereotype system where all children are forced to have the same
kind of educational experience.
A vote against term 17, the proposed new term, is a vote for
pluralism and therefore I submit a vote for the ultimate Canadian
value.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member in his comments made reference to section 18 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I draw his attention to page 10 of the unanimous report of the
joint committee where it clarifies that Professor Anne Bayefsky,
the constitutional expert who gave evidence before the committee
indicated that the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights does not say a state party to the treaty is required to
provide public funding for denominational rights. I think that
is contrary to what I understood him to say in his speech.
Also the member made reference to a right is a right is a right.
Is he implying then that the Constitution can only be amended in
the case of unanimity and if so, what is the purpose of section
43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 that provides for bilateral
amendments?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, first of all with respect
to Professor Bayefsky's position as quoted in the majority
report, I disagree with her.
Referring to the other two covenants which I referenced, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that education shall
be free and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights says that primary education shall be compulsory
and available, free to all. In the proper context, it is
understood that the right to education is a right that is
exercisable by all parents, including poor parents which means
through the assistance of the state.
With respect to the second question, no, I do not believe that
unanimity is required to make an amendment to the Constitution. I
indicated during my remarks that the threshold I thought was
necessary to remove rights given to a particular group was that
that group clearly and expressly support such removal of rights.
That was not clear by this blanket referendum process which was
conducted in Newfoundland. We cannot discern from the results
whether or not and which groups gave their assent. We are saying
that generally a social majority can alienate the rights of a
social minority. That is a troubling precedent which all members
of this place should be concerned about not only for the
educational rights in their provinces, but the other rights
afforded by the Constitution.
I would also like to point out that Professor Bayefsky and other
constitutional authorities who appeared before the committee
argued persuasively that this amendment would subject the new
term 17 to the application of the charter of rights and freedoms
and therefore any religious observances or courses which took on
anything close to denominational character would be imperilled by
the jurisprudence with respect to religious education in both the
Zylberberg and civil liberties cases out of Ontario. Essentially
these are cases which say that we cannot have publicly funded
denominational education under the charter because of its
equality rights.
I am glad the hon. member raised the arguments of that esteemed
constitutional scholar. They are arguments which give further
cause for concern in terms of denominational education.
2100
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform has proposed three tests. There has been much discussion
over the course of this day in regard to them. I note that
members on the opposite side of the House and the other parties
adjacent to us have either inferred or explicitly referred to
them. I use them as a bit of a guide for my remarks this
evening. I also suggest, as I first make remarks on the
democratic consent, that with this first criteria I differ with
some of my colleagues. It does not trump the other two.
First, on remarks of democratic consent. On September 2, 1997
it appears the Brian Tobin Liberal government of Newfoundland and
Labrador took a very knee jerk, malicious approach. It was a
very spiteful response to the provincial government ruling that
it was not appropriately implementing term 17. As well, we have
learned from the Quebec situation that a referendum may be
democratic in theory, but demagogic in reality when the form of
the question is abused.
Here was a government that was slapped on the wrist, then like a
spoiled boy decided it did not want to play. It wanted to walk
away instead of working it out. It sprung this referendum on
July 31, 1997. The Newfoundland government could have amended
the legislation to provide a more workable process for
implementing term 17.
The court decision handed down brought into effect the second
referendum call at the end of the month. There was no debate in
the house of assembly prior to this announcement, no hearings on
the proposed amendment. I would suggest that that would have
been helpful in getting the issues out, getting them into the
public debate arena.
The Tobin government only unveiled, and it has been mentioned
often, the proposed new term 17 two days before the advance poll
and one week before the vote. As other colleagues have referred,
it was substantially different from the form of the question
which was put on term 17 on the polling day.
I am not of the view that the technical and legal language needs
to be on the ballot. I am of the belief that the technical and
legal language needs to concur with the form of the question.
This is not the case. This is bordering on fraudulent. It is
deceptive. It is trickery. It leaves open to question whether
there was an informed consent of the electorate in general and
the affected minorities in particular.
I quickly note, as others have, that the government used
hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the yes side and
granted not a penny to the no side. I have looked at some of the
government advertising. Who is not for children and opportunity
and advancement and all of these wonderful things? That is the
nature of the government paid advertising, its issues of
motherhood and apple pie, but no dollars granted to the no side.
Also being referred to is the fact that there were no
scrutineers.
It is my belief, as commented by others, that if we are taking
this thing of referendum seriously, as the Reform Party does and
we are out in the forefront on this one, then we need to be
putting a fair question. We need proper electoral safeguards,
scrutineers, et cetera, and equal funding for both the yes and no
sides or no funding at all. It is an old saying that justice
must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done.
Second, it has not yet been demonstrated that the revised term
17 meets the test of the rule of law. The rule of law requires
that the Newfoundland government demonstrate that its proposed
reforms do not prejudicially affect the previously granted rights
of those who desire a religious orientation in the education of
their children.
The Newfoundland government could have addressed this. It had
every opportunity by obtaining a ruling, a reference from the
Supreme Court of Canada clearly establishing that its proposed
amendment does not prejudicially affect previous rights granted.
Why get into this? The government had this opportunity. It is
not an issue of whether these rights are discriminatory or not.
The fact is these rights were granted.
I want to talk from an historical precedent point of view how
there could no longer or necessarily be discrimination in regard
to these matters. The first education act in Newfoundland was
passed in 1836 and granted public funding to the Newfoundland
School Society, Roman Catholics and nine school boards.
It was amended in 1874 to permit proportional funding to all
religious groups which at that time included Roman Catholics,
Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. In
1892 and 1913 respectively other groups were brought in. Then
the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada were granted full
partnership in funding in 1954 and added into the constitution in
1987.
2105
My point is that there is no doubt an increasing number of
families in the province who would not be members of traditional
Roman Catholic or protestant faith groups but the right of such
parents to educate their children according to their own faith
and convictions ought to be upheld, as should be the right of
Roman Catholic and protestant parents.
There is nothing that precludes there being more groups brought
in. The solution proposed by this term 17 will not accommodate
greater diversity but rather imposes an approach which
marginalizes religion and excludes it from the general
curriculum.
We should be expanding, as my hon. colleague said just moments
ago, the educational rights instead of extinguishing rights. If
there are disenfranchised groups that wish to be accommodated,
that can be accomplished without eroding the constitutional
protection which other minority religious groups enjoy.
There are also ways of addressing current inefficiencies in the
educational system which would not require a constitutional
amendment.
By press release dated April 24, 1996, the minister of education
and training announced that a framework agreement had been
negotiated between the province and denominations. That agreement
indicates that the government's concerns can be addressed without
the constitutional amendment requested. In fact, the churches
had co-operated with educational reform.
Premier Tobin made the comment that they were trying to
frustrate the process of education reform. Not so, Premier
Tobin. In fact, these churches had willingly embraced reform.
They had entered into dozens of joint school arrangements. They
had closed and consolidated other schools, 30-some for the Roman
Catholics and 7 Pentecostal in the past year.
They co-operated with the government in a reduction of school
boards from the original 267 to the present 10. They
participated in the government operated provincial school
construction board which controls all school construction except
that school bus reform is necessary. On and on we go.
They in fact endorsed 90% of the commission's recommendations
and urged the government to get on with implementing them.
It is clear that the Pentecostals and Roman Catholics will be
negatively affected, detrimentally affected by the new religion
program in term 17 before us.
This offer of a religion program developed by the Department of
Education is a cruel joke. It will be a neutered, generic,
no-name brand sociology religion class. At its worst, it will be
hostile to theistic religions.
The present Newfoundland government has displayed such disdain
for religious education that there is no reason to hope that it
will suddenly become conscientious for the rights of parents in
matters of religion.
The provincial Department of Education writing the content for
the religion course is like putting the fox in charge of the
chicken coop. It is a cruel joke. I am of the view that this
amendment is not in the best interests of Canadians.
Premier Brian Peckford in the Hansard record of April 10,
1987 speaks warmly and extols the Pentecostal Assemblies of
Newfoundland, the way they operated their schools, their
uniqueness in terms of their putting forth values, instilling
manners and courtesy and respect for others and family values and
so on. He in fact warns them not to let go of that, not to let
that be deluded over time.
Premier Brian Peckford mentions the fact of that danger and
makes very clear that they should be regarded as a shining light
for others to adopt and to ensure that that was also part of
their overall educational system and philosophy. In righting the
wrong, he says of the past that he has great pleasure in
recommending the inclusion of the Pentecostal Assemblies of
Newfoundland.
That being said, who should run the schools? Who should decide
on the nature of a child's schooling? I do not recognize the
province's exclusive authority to decide the education of my
child for Newfoundland or any other province.
It is parents who have the primary responsibility for the
education of their children. It is therefore a right to be able
to choose a type of education that they desire for their
children.
More to the point, they should be entitled to take the funds to
pay for that child's education with them, whether directly as in
a voucher system or indirectly by funding schools based on the
number of pupils they enroll, a system known as capitation.
That approach is finding favour around the world, not only in
free market Britain or New Zealand as expected, but also in
socialist countries Sweden and Denmark.
The Canadian public would be better served by acknowledging
parental choice of a school where their children can be educated
in keeping with their world view and values for the good of
Canadian society.
The Newfoundland referendum is suspect all around. Rather than
extinguishing minority rights in this respect, I believe we
should be enhancing them and expanding them.
2110
After serious and careful deliberation, much consultation and
conservation with others, I stand opposed to term 17 as it is
before us today.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today after hearing compelling arguments put forward by
members on both sides of this issue.
Having listened to my colleagues it is a very difficult
situation for me to make a decision on. I have thought and
thought about it. Especially being a minority myself, this is a
very important question for me. Are we trampling on minority
rights? There is always the possibility that a majority can
trample minority rights, and being a minority this is a very
important issue for me. I have looked at the issue very
seriously. I sat in the House and heard all members talking
about the pros and cons.
Where do I stand on the matter? After listening to everybody
and looking at what we have stated as our policy, I have learned
over several years that amending the constitution is never an
easy undertaking. Nor should it be.
The constitution contains the principles and underpinning upon
which we govern and are governed. Its influence on the daily
activities of Canadians is all encompassing. Therefore our
constitution must reflect the will of the people.
Some who have not followed the issue closely may wonder what
exactly is happening with this amendment. Basically by amending
term 17, the Newfoundland and Labrador school system would change
its common denominational nature within the province, allowing
the province to move to a single, publicly funded school system.
It should be noted that even with these changes this amendment
would not take religion out of the schools. Term 17 contains a
provision which guarantees that religion must be taught and that
religious observance must be permitted in schools where requested
by parents.
My colleagues feel this is not exactly guaranteeing minority
rights that were guaranteed at the time Newfoundland joined
Confederation. I agree that is true, but does it really take
away a minority right? That is the question I was wondering
about. I personally feel that it does not take away a minority
right. It is there. It may not be in the same manner as it was
before but it is there. Therefore I feel that the basic
principle of a minority right being taken away is not a major
issue.
On the other hand, children would not be forced to participate
in such activities if the parents or themselves did not wish
that. These issues are very emotional ones which go to the basic
values of individuals. Each time this has been debated in this
place we have heard very eloquent and heartfelt arguments on both
sides as to why or why not we as parliamentarians should support
or oppose this resolution.
As a new parliamentarian I have heard from several concerned
individuals on both sides of the issue. This is a decision that
one cannot enter into lightly. I have spent a great deal of time
thinking about it. After thinking very hard on the issue I have
come to the conclusion that I am in favour of this resolution. I
feel that it follows the democratic will of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
My colleagues have stated that the question put forward was not
clear and was changed and that the referendum did not meet the
criteria of a real referendum.
2115
I would submit that this debate has gone on in Newfoundland and
it is the people of Newfoundland who are ultimately responsible
for making this decision. In the second referendum over 73% of
the people agreed on this issue. I can share some of the
concerns my colleagues have expressed and I would agree with
their sentiment. However, they have gone through two referendums
in Newfoundland and in the second referendum the percentage
increased. Therefore I am quite satisfied this was a legitimate
referendum.
One of the first and foremost principles of our party is the
equality of provinces and respect for provincial jurisdiction. We
support each and every province's having equality of status and
equal powers and Parliament and the Government of Canada's
treating all the provinces equally. Term 17 deals with the
provincial power over education and the amendment allows the
house of assembly to decide.
I agree with my colleague who said education should be the
responsibility of parents. The primary responsibility of
education must fall on parents. The parents who live in
Newfoundland have made a decision through the referendum that
this is the way they want to do it.
Another principle deals with respect for the equality of all
citizens. We are in favour of citizens having equal rights under
the law. Under the current system with term 17 there are not
equal rights for all citizens. What is at issue here is whether
the existing rights have to be swept away or whether they could
be accommodated in some other manner.
Another guiding principle refers to the basic right of freedoms
of conscience and religion. At issue here is whether the right
to denominational schools is an element of this freedom or not.
Under the new amended term 17 education in religion is not
specific to any denomination but what is guaranteed is the right
to religious observance for all.
The last two principles deal with the will of the majority while
at the same time respecting the rights of minorities. At issue
here is whether the procedures of the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador were fair and whether the rights and interests of
minorities were safeguarded, as I alluded to in the beginning.
There have been arguments on both sides that have dealt with the
fairness of the procedures used by the government in obtaining
its mandate to reform the school system. On one side it has been
argued that the government did not give the citizens enough time
to make an informed decision, that it was a short campaign during
the summer months and that the text of the referendum question
was released only a week prior to the referendum date. The
government actively campaigned for the amendment, as my colleague
mentioned.
On the other side, this was the second referendum in a two year
period, which supported the changes to the educational system in
the province. The second referendum received a substantially
higher percentage of support than the first one. As I mentioned
earlier, the referendum question was supported basically in every
part of the province and gained the unanimous support of the
house of assembly.
When it comes down to whether the importance we attach to
democratic consent and respecting the will of the majority
outweighs our concern about the impact of this amendment on
denominational rights in Newfoundland, I think it does. That is
why I will be supporting this resolution.
2120
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for my hon. colleague. It is in the nature of
going back in a time capsule, one might say.
With this matter of a referendum, important as it is to each one
of us, are there not some limitations? Are there not some bottom
lines? We can go back in time to our neighbours to the south
during the time when there was slavery in their country. Had
there been a vote at the time about whether to allow the slaves
rights or to keep them in that subjugated, suppressed state, and
if the vote had left them without rights and kept them
subjugated, would the member have been in agreement with that
kind of referendum?
As a preface I would say that I stand opposed to that. It does
not matter that there may have been a democratic “referenda”
issue there, I would stand opposed. There are bottom lines. I am
personally interested in how the member would have voted on such
an issue.
Second, is this extended to all areas or are there some bottom
lines with respect to this?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, there are some good
analogies there.
To answer the question, in the case of slavery, that referendum
was taking away the basic human rights of someone, treating
someone as inferior.
In this case we are talking about a change in the system, not
about taking away the rights of somebody. We are talking about
changes. That is the way I view it. I do not view it as
somebody's basic human rights in the province being attacked. All
it is doing is changing the basic system which the people of
Newfoundland people think would be far more effective for them
and at the same time is giving them religious rights.
It is not taking away religious rights or the right to send my
child to a religious school. I can keep my child at home and
teach him religion. So there are two basic, strong fundamental
factors here.
The bottom line is that in this referendum I do not view that a
right has been snatched away from someone in Newfoundland. I
feel that the referendum has asked them if they want a change in
the system. That is the way I view it.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member knows of my concerns and the concerns of others about
minority rights. We heard earlier that the francophones had set
up, with full rights, a school system managed by the
francophones, non-denominational. But in accordance with term 17
in and for the province of Newfoundland, the legislature shall
have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education.
Could the member possibly comment on whether he thinks these
rights could be affected by the slippery slope of the general,
gradual reduction of rights. Would that have any effect on the
francophone school board? Clearly that school—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will give the
hon. member for Calgary East a minute to respond to that
question.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I
still say that this is a change, not taking rights away. I still
feel that parents in Newfoundland have the basic right to educate
their children in the manner they want.
I know that in Calgary those who do not agree with that are
teaching their children at home. Basically I am looking at this
through the referendum and the desire of parents of Newfoundland
who are asking for a change to be made to better administer the
system.
As a person who belongs to a minority I would be the first to
raise the flag if I felt a minority right was disappearing. I do
not feel a minority right is disappearing.
2125
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to take part in this debate. It has been a long day.
There has been much lively debate since the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs opened the debate at noon hour. I
think it has been a very interesting and honest debate.
Members on all sides of the House have taken part and have
expressed their views and opinions. That is the way it should be
when we are considering a matter as serious as constitutional
amendment.
We have to look at a number of issues in making our decision.
The first has been raised by many members speaking on the issue
today, that is to answer the question of whether the process was
fair. I am referring to the process whereby the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador proposed the resolution that it passed
unanimously on a free vote in the legislature of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We need to review that.
It was my pleasure to be a member of the special joint committee
that studied this matter. I would like to make reference to one
of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, Mr. David
Schneiderman, executive director of the Centre for Constitutional
Studies at the University of Alberta. Professor Schneiderman
indicated to the committee that certain fundamental questions
must be asked in determining whether the process was a fair one.
He asked: “Was there an opportunity for debate and deliberation
among the general public?” The committee had no difficulty
coming to the conclusion that there had been because testimony
before it revealed that this debate had been going on for quite
some time in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Further he asked: “Could the same result have been achieved
through non-constitutional means?” We are dealing with a
request to amend the constitution, which has the effect of
extinguishing denominational rights. Whether we are for or
against it, it needs to be accomplished by constitutional means.
The next question was: “Was the subject matter of the amendment
the subject of an election or referendum?” We know there have
been two referenda with respect to this issue.
The last question was: “Were the communities of interest most
directly affected consulted and given an opportunity for
meaningful participation?” On that point the committee came to
the conclusion that all parties on all sides of the issue over a
period of years and leading up to the final referendum of this
year certainly had those opportunities.
The majority of the committee had very little difficulty in
coming to its conclusion. Members of the government and two of
the four opposition parties came to the conclusion that the
process was fair.
During the debate and also by persons and groups that appeared
before the committee, it was further indicated that the process
was tainted in that the government participated in the
referendum. I submit that is only reasonable. The legislation
of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was at stake.
There is a duty on a government proposing legislation to support
it. I do not see how that allegation could cause any concern as
to the fairness and reasonableness of the process.
2130
Earlier in debate the member for St. John's East indicated his
concern that the charter would apply to the new amended term 17
and consequently the provisions of 17(2) and 17(3) which provide
for courses in religion and religious observances at the request
of the parents would be struck down. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs in his submission earlier today gave
the opinion that clearly term 17 as amended would enjoy the
protection from the charter.
For the benefit of the member for St. John's East I would also
make reference to one of the expert and legal opinions that the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador obtained answering the
question could a provision of the charter or another part of the
Constitution invalidate the rights set out in term 17. The
answer was no.
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that one constitutional
provision cannot be used to invalidate a provision in another
part of the Constitution. Term 17 is part of the Constitution of
Canada. In provinces where the courts have ruled that religious
observances such as the Lord's Prayer cannot be held in the
public school, there is no constitutional protection comparable
to that in term 17.
That opinion was provided to the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador not by a Liberal or someone that could be questioned,
but rather by a former cabinet minister, the Hon. John Crosbie.
Therefore, I think the member for St. John's East would give that
legal opinion some recognition.
[Translation]
In today's debate, we are hearing a lot about minority rights,
namely whether the amendments to term 17 are really a matter of
minority rights. We must remember that the situation in
Newfoundland and Labrador is not the same as in the other
provinces. First, Newfoundland and Labrador never had a public
school system. It is very difficult to determine who makes up the
minorities and the majority. For there to be a minority, there has
to be a majority.
It is very difficult in Newfoundland and Labrador where,
before the latest amendments to term 17, some 96 per cent of the
population enjoyed denominational rights. Some of these
denominations were included in a school system, but only about 4
per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not have
denominational rights. It is a bit difficult to say today that in
the effort to amend term 17 the rights of minorities are at stake.
In addition, regarding the results of the referendum, it is
very difficult to know how the various groups voted.
There was no way to find out. In fact, when Minister Grimes, the
Newfoundland and Labrador minister of education, appeared before
the committee, he indicated that, in the first referendum in 1995,
the premier at the time, Clyde Wells, wrote to all denominational
groups, to all the leaders of religious groups, including the
Catholics and the Pentacostals, to ask them if they agreed with a
proposal to have every voter indicate their religion upon arriving
at the polling station so that the voting pattern of each religious
group could be known.
2135
Minister Grimes told us that Premier Wells never did get a
response. When Premier Tobin proposed the second referendum, there
was no question of it because it had already been determined that
the leaders of the churches were not interested in finding out how
their members were going to vote.
As well, it can be seen that the Catholics, at 37%, are the
most numerous of all the denominational groups. It is still hard
to grasp how that group can be described as a minority, when it
represents 37% of the population.
[English]
In the case of the Catholics, it is fairly evident in my opinion
with the Catholics representing 37% of the population, if they
had turned out and voted en masse to protect their denominational
rights, they may not have won the referendum but certainly the
result would not have been 73%. The Pentecostal community
represents 7% of the population. It is more difficult to
determine what the turnout was there. In fact we had much
speculation about it at the committee but there is no way of
determining for certain.
Appendix 1 to the committee's report is the results of the
Newfoundland referendum of September 1997. It is broken down by
percentage of the population who voted, the percentage of people
who voted yes, the percentage of people who voted no, the
percentage of the Roman Catholic population and the Pentecostal
population for each of the various polling stations.
Looking at it quickly, one can see that in the areas where the
Pentecostal population is the highest represented, for instance
Baie Verte where the population is 25%, the one that strikes me
the most, is the voter turnout was 45.2% which is below the
average. In a polling station where the Pentacostals were fairly
well represented the turnout of the vote was not any higher. In
fact the percentage of the vote for yes was 57.9.
Similarly in Exploits, there was 26% Pentecostal population, 53%
turnout which was about on the average, but again 63% voted yes.
The riding of Lewisporte, 34% Pentecostal population, 57% a
little over the average turnout and 59% of the voters voted yes.
Even in the ridings where the Pentacostals were more highly
represented than in other ridings, one can see that there is
still fairly strong support for the resolution.
It is very difficult to subscribe to the argument that what we
are dealing with is a minority rights issue, that the rights of
the minority are not being respected. I do not consider it a
minority rights issue. I consider it a question of
denominational rights which had been entrenched in the
Constitution.
Yes, one should not go about the business of amending the
Constitution without giving it serious consideration, but I do
not see in this case that it is a question where minority rights
are being disregarded and the will of the majority is being
imposed over them.
2140
Indeed this is a very tough decision. It is a very tough issue.
Certainly the members of the committee, including those who
supported the majority report to make a recommendation to the
House and to the Senate that the requested resolution be passed,
had a great deal of empathy and sympathy for those people who
came before the committee and indicated that they did not wish to
see these denominational rights extinguished.
I was impressed by the evidence that we heard at the committee
by the Newfoundland Human Rights Association and the Canadian
Civil Liberties Association. These two groups exist to defend
minority rights, to defend minorities. Both of these groups were
strong advocates in supporting the resolution. I do not see where
it can really be seen to be an abuse of minority rights when the
very associations that are there to protect minority rights are
indeed supporting it.
They were quite candid in giving their testimony before the
committee. They said that they were in a very unusual position
for them. They usually oppose government legislation or
government resolutions, they rarely ever defend them. But in
this case, they took that position.
I was impressed earlier this afternoon when the Leader of the
Official Opposition made his intervention on this issue. He
expressed those same concerns of sympathy and empathy for the
people and the groups whose rights would be extinguished by this.
There is no doubt that everyone understood that. If anyone heard
or read Premier Tobin's speech on the night that he announced the
referendum, it was very clear and everyone knew that
denominational rights were being extinguished.
In spite of that, the Leader of the Official Opposition has
taken the position that in this case because freedom of religion
will still exist, because of the respect for the will of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador he personally is taking the
position of supporting this.
I think it is a very difficult process that many of us have had
to go through but sometimes in your gut you just know the right
thing to do. I think those of us who are prepared to support
this resolution have come to that position through that process.
The last point I want to deal with was the question of
precedent. The concern is that by the Parliament of Canada, the
House of Commons and the Senate supporting this resolution and in
effect extinguishing denominational rights, we are setting a
precedent that would apply to other provinces should they make
similar requests. This is something the government has been very
clear on, that any further requests for constitutional amendments
will be looked at on their own merits.
I would submit there is no other province that has an education
system similar in any way to that of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is a totally different situation and there is no point in
getting into the niceties between legal and political precedents.
I do not see where there would be anything that anyone could
bring forward to argue that because this constitutional amendment
is being granted for Newfoundland and Labrador the Parliament of
Canada is bound in any way to grant a similar amendment for
dealing with educational rights, denominational rights in other
provinces.
For those reasons, I encourage all members to support the
resolution.
2145
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to expand on the statement of the hon. member. He was
talking about clarification he could not find or that the
committee could not find the clarification for how the
Pentecostals voted.
On the sheet that the hon. member was referring to, which was
produced by Mark Graesser from the Department of Political
Sciences Memorial University of Newfoundland, it is very clear.
If we extend over to the third column, it indicates very clearly
that in Baie Verte, Exploits, Lewisporte and Windsor-Springdale,
the areas mentioned, the Pentecostal votes in those communities
were respectively 32%, 32%, 32% and 30% voting in the “yes”
column. I think it is of import to point out that the
Pentecostals in those communities voted substantially against
this resolution and that their “yes” vote was in the
neighbourhood of 30%.
As a matter of fact, throughout the province the “yes” vote
was calculated to be only 32%.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate in my
comments that indeed there was much speculation. In fact, there
was a witness who came and presented the report that the member
refers to. Again, that is not proof positive, and that is the
point that I was making.
It is an extrapolation from the official figures that were
reported in the referendum and it is taken by riding-riding. This
individual's credentials I do not quarrel with, but again it is
an extrapolation, it is an estimate, it is not proof positive.
That was my point, that no one can say for certain, with 100%
certainty if the original proposal that Premier Clyde Wells at
the time had put forward in identifying the ballots: a
Pentecostal voter gets a green ballot, a Roman Catholic voter
gets a red ballot—if that system had been used, if that system
had been acceptable to the leaders of the various denominations,
then we would have more certainty.
The point still remains that even if the Pentecostal community
did not vote for it, it is not a question of a minority right, in
my estimation, because they would be the only ones with the
denominational rights left. The same report indicated I think
that the Roman Catholics had voted 61% or something in favour,
again an extrapolation. There is no certainty, but the same
method was used to determine it.
Even if we know for certain that the Pentecostals did not
support it, I think this amendment should still go forward, the
whole scheme. I do not think they are a minority in the
traditional minority/majority right, but the whole scheme of
denominational schools in Newfoundland and Labrador would no
longer be applicable with only one of the original seven
denominations still having rights.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, my point of bringing
this up was to indicate that if the figures were being used for
the first part to establish the 59% of votes from those various
communities suggesting that they voted too, therefore we should
also utilize a third column of figures that definitely indicates
that only 30% of Pentecostals voted in favour of this.
In other words, if the first two columns are okay, the third
column must be okay.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member
is confused as to what I was referring to. I am referring to
appendix 1 which is in the report, which is from the Newfoundland
Referendum September 1997. It is the official results. He is
referring to Mr. Graesser's report, which is a separate document.
We are not referring to the same document.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, even though
I have 20 minutes available, I think probably I will use less.
I just appreciate not having the stricture of having to quit at
10 minutes after instead of 12 after in case I am in the middle
of an important statement.
2150
Education has to be one of the most important things to parents
and to families. There is no doubt that the education that
children receive from the time they are very young until they are
really old and graduate from university that every day at school
there is an influence on their lives, not only academically but
also in terms of their growth as citizens and their growth as
individuals.
I remember—and this will date me—about 30 years ago or a
little less, the debate hot in the schools at that time was
whether sex education ought to be in the schools. I taught
mathematics at the college level while some of my colleagues
taught physics. One of my colleagues, in addressing that
question, said “Well, of course, sex should be taught in the
schools. If the schools do as good a job of teaching that as
they do of teaching math and physics then the children will lose
all interest in it”. I do not think that is probably true, but
that was his statement at the time.
This leads me into the part that I want to talk about in this
debate, and that is that there is so much more to education than
simply the academics. There are many studies that show this.
All of us who have had children have observed it and anyone with
common sense would agree that children behave not only in the way
they are taught but also in the examples that are given to them.
The values and beliefs that are held by the significant adults in
their lives are going to be the values that the children adopt in
their own lives. That is very true and there are very few
exceptions to that.
Of course, there are some. In my own case, I went through a few
years at the latter end of my teens when I rejected the values of
my parents. I rejected their religious faith and ran away from
home when I was 17. I know members will not believe that but I
really did. Eventually I was reconciled not only to my parents
but also to God and my life has been totally different since
then. This was a very important and integral part of my life.
I believe very strongly that for parents who want to have a
Christian education or some other values-based education in their
children's lives that they should have the right to do so. I do
not believe that it is the role of any government, be it federal,
provincial or municipal, to take away from parents their rights
and responsibilities to provide for the education and training of
their children.
I again emphasize that I believe that those are two things that
work together but are not synonymous since training and education
are two different things.
I believe that in this debate one of the questions which we must
answer is to what degree is that right being taken away. This is
a real tug of war in this debate because on one hand we want to
vote for it. There are many strong, compelling arguments to vote
for this amendment but there are also some very compelling
arguments to vote against it.
One of the reasons to vote for it is that this levels the
playing field. The fact of the matter is that in Newfoundland
there were certain groups that had the right to run the schools
and their children could go to those schools while other groups
were excluded from it. In a sense that is a reason to vote for
this amendment. It will provide them all with an opportunity to
send their children to the school of their choice.
It reminds me of the old days when Henry Ford started the Ford
Motor Company. I do not know if you remember, Mr. Speaker, but I
remember when the Model Ts first came out the advertising was
“You can have a Model T in any colour you want so long as the
colour you want is black”. This is exactly the same as the
public school systems. Everybody can go to the public school of
their own free will because that is the only one that is going to
be available.
I do not think that is a right decision to make. I speak not
only to the province of Newfoundland, I also speak to the
province of Alberta where this debate is currently going on in
terms of funding of schools which are not part of the public
school system, and to every province in this country.
2155
I really wish that we would truly recognize the rights of
parents on all the different positions they hold on this issue to
have the right to choose for their children the kind of training
they want. While I say that parents have this right and
responsibility, and it is not to be taken lightly, I believe that
the role of government is to provide the freedom for parents to
make that choice.
There is one thing to say. Any parents who really feel strongly
about this issue can start their own schools and run them as
private schools with no other funding. I have been in that
position. My wife and I chose to send two of our children to a
private school. At first that private school received no
funding. Now it receives about 20% to 25% of the funding that
public schools in Alberta receive. We made that sacrifice
because to us it was very important, but we had to make a
considerable financial sacrifice in order to provide that
education.
One could argue that I did not have full exercise of freedom
because there was a price for it. For example, we might say that
we have the freedom of movement across this country, but if one
of the provinces were to put up a tollgate and charge everyone
$1,000 to come into that province, then we could say that now the
freedom is somewhat curtailed. It is a little less freedom than
before. We still have the freedom to go there but we have to
plunk down the bucks.
I contend that people who make choices about their children's
education should have a free choice. I do not mind a certain
amount of financial commitment having to be made for that. It
deepens the commitment if nothing else. At the same time I
believe the people who make those choices should not be cut out
of the educational funding dollar.
There is an argument that public funds should not be used to
support private schools. This Liberal government uses that
terminology too yet it quite clearly uses public funds to support
private business. I cannot forget about Bombardier which is a
private business. The government gives piles of public funds to
it. I am saying that is really no different. In the case of
schools, the parents are taxpayers.
I will use this analogy. Let us visualize it as a big barrel.
All of the taxpayers put their money into the barrel for the
education of the children in this province. Why should some
parents be able to take the money out of the barrel to provide
education for their children? In our province of Alberta it
happens to be people who choose the secular based education in
the public school system in which God or any mention of religion
is anathema, or they can choose another system if they are
catholic. They have the right and others do not. To me that is
curtailment of a freedom of choice which I think we should really
value in this country. I am saying the same thing for the
province of Newfoundland.
I would have been delighted to vote for this measure if the
provincial government of Newfoundland had instituted a plan like
a voucher system in which there is public money from the
taxpayers. If there is a group of parents that can set up a
school for their children based on their deep values then that
public money or at least a large proportion of it should be
available for that education system. To me that would have
solved the problem of whether their rights were prejudicially
affected.
I really do not believe we should be forcing people to go to a
religious school if they are not so inclined, but at the same
time we need to recognize that the secular school where there is
no religion is also teaching a form of religion and the message
to the students has to be confusing.
Why is it that at home we deal with the reality of the existence
of God? Why is it that at home we are taught to integrate this
belief into all areas of our life whereas in school it cannot be
mentioned? To me that is a contradiction and one which we should
be correcting, and one which the Newfoundland government had an
opportunity to correct. I wish it would have done it.
2200
I think the point has been made that the parents have the
primary right and responsibility. The government's
responsibility should be to provide the opportunity for the
parents to exercise that right without undue financial penalty.
Last, I believe also that there is really no such thing as a
values free education. I am thinking of this training. The
member for Broadview—Greenwood put it well. He came from the
Catholic tradition. He pointed out in a way I can certainly
relate to, and I put this so it is properly understood, there are
some people whose religious belief and faith is more nominal.
They have the label, they live good lives and there is no problem
with it. But there are others for whom it is a deeply held value
and one which they are not content to take lightly. They
integrate it into their own lives and they want to do this also
with their children. In saying that, I think we need to provide
the ability for parents to do this without great financial
penalty.
There are some for whom this is not important. I believe in our
present society they are probably in the majority. We have
become secularized. I was talking to a person the other day and
we got on to this subject. He is about my age and so we have all
this wisdom. We can look behind us and see the ripples and the
waves from the boat that has just gone by. We look back and we
can see how it used to be calm waters and now it seems to be a
little more stormy. He said one of the big reasons for the
increase in crime and for the increase in some of our societal
values toward women and toward children which are so disturbing
to us all is the secularization of our society. We have
basically in our society written out that impact which a deep
religious faith has and did have for many years in the majority
of Canadians. This is unfortunate.
Had the Government of Newfoundland taken what I urge all
provinces to do, arrange their administration of school funding
so that it would bypass that built-in bias, I would have total
freedom to go through this because there is so much in this
amendment that is plausible and positive.
However, because I am not convinced at all that the rights of
these parents which were put into the constitution have been
prejudicially affected, I believe that they are losing rights.
Consequently I cannot support this motion.
In thinking about the courses they are going to have in these
schools where they want them, courses about religion, I thought
of an analogy. I taught young people all my life, and this was
my job when I taught at the college level. Take one of these
young people and say instead of ever getting married what we are
going to do is teach you all about marriage. We will have
courses about marriage. We will have courses about how men and
women relate to each other, how they should get along and all
these other things. But you will never be able to get together
with another person and form a marriage bond.
Really in a way a course about religion is about at the same
level. It will talk about it but it does not give the children a
clear example of what it means to be deeply committed to a faith
in God or to a faith in whatever it is the particular group is
promoting.
With that I rest my case. I urge all members in the House to
think carefully about what choices they are making when they vote
for this. I believe that we should defeat this amendment and
send it back to the people in Newfoundland, to the government in
Newfoundland so they can fix this inequity. Then when they bring
it back we would be pleased to support it if they showed that
they did not prejudicially affect the parents who are quite
clearly prejudicially affected by this amendment and by the
changes the provincial government is proposing.
2205
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for my hon. colleague with respect to the analogy
he fleshed out for us. In Newfoundland and elsewhere parents do
have the right to send their children to another school, as he so
rightly said. I have found that low income people are not able
to do that. They simply do not have the means to pay the taxes
and send their children to a private school. What has been the
member's experience with respect to that?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the
question of my colleague about the financial penalty, the people
who do not have the financial ability. We made some sacrifices
in our family which meant almost no vacations. It meant driving
old cars. In fact, I still have my 1959 Meteor. I do not drive
it anymore. But it meant keeping a car four times as long. I am
still driving my 1982 Chevy Suburban. We made those sacrifices
because the money had to go to tuition.
I was on the board of the school I attended and we made the
decision that in order to make it easier for children to attend
our school, we would try to reduce the financial barriers. We
set up a tuition plan so that for a family with more children the
tuition rates were steeply reduced. As a matter of fact, if
there happened to be a family with more than four children, after
the fourth child's tuition was paid the rest were free. They were
allowed into the so-called family plan.
Certainly that should not be necessary. It is a great hardship
for these private schools to endure the costs when there is a
very uneven playing field. That was our solution.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since the hour is growing late I will try to keep my comments
rather short.
A number of points my colleague from Elk Island raised I would
echo as well. Being a former teacher, education is very
important and being the father of four children, education is
very important. In fact, my wife and I have made the decision to
home school our children in order to impart the values we feel
are important. Notwithstanding that others choose other options,
which is totally within the rights of an individual, we have made
the decision for ourselves.
I must turn to the point of minority rights in the debate which
was raised by a number of my colleagues. This amendment would
extinguish, in my mind beyond a shadow of a doubt, rights
currently granted to individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Yes, referendums have been held and democratic consent has been
given, yet we must consider the minorities in this case, the
people whose rights would be extinguished by this amendment.
As my colleague mentioned, the idea of including religious
courses as an option to replace these denominational schools
simply does not have the same impact as having a denominational
or a complete religious orientation at a school.
I went to a private Christian college at great expense. I had
to work hard during the summers to go there. However, what I
learned there was a way of looking at the world, a world view,
not simply religion second hand but trying to integrate that into
every walk of my own life. I know how much of an impact that had
on me. I see this also as being important that the children of
Newfoundland have that opportunity under the existing system.
This amendment would alter that opportunity.
2210
Also, the notion of schools of choice was mentioned and that
providing funding to the institutions where the children go would
be a good solution to this problem. That is a provincial
responsibility. It might be a solution to look at in this
debate.
As we know, the moneys that would go with a child to the school
of choice would help to increase the accountability factor of
that school. It would also give the parents the right and
opportunity to send their child to the school of their choice.
I have listened with great interest to the tone of the debate
throughout the day. I have noticed that there are members who
are for and against this amendment from the government benches as
well as the opposition benches. It has been a good debate.
Members have had the opportunity to express their views in a
non-partisan nature. I have appreciate the opportunity.
I will conclude my remarks by stating again that I believe this
would extinguish the rights currently held by individuals in
Newfoundland and Labrador and that is why I cannot support the
amendment and will be voting against it.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make one brief point. The hon. member indicated in his speech
that he attended a Christian college and he wished this option
would be available for the people of Newfoundland. It will be.
There is nothing in this amendment which will prevent private
Christian or private schools of any sort. I just wanted to bring
that to the member's attention.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
pointing that out. I guess I did not make myself very clear on
that point.
My point was much larger. It was that the opportunity which I
had shaped my world view, the way that I interact with
individuals and the frame through which I see life in general. I
am basically saying that there would be a difference in the
religion courses offered in Newfoundland versus a holistic or
religious perspective which would incorporate all aspects of a
child's education.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to this extraordinarily important issue.
We are often cautioned when we are growing up never to mix
religion and politics, and that is precisely what we are doing in
this debate. Having said that, I am going to plunge head long
into it.
The issue, of course, is the extinguishment of the right to
education in denominational schools in Newfoundland,
denominational schools which until this point have received
public funding. I stand four-square against what the Government
of Newfoundland is proposing and what many hon. members of the
House are prepared to accept.
I want to tell the House why I oppose term 17. I propose it
primarily because I believe it really does shrink the ambit of
personal freedom in this country. On so many occasions we see
our freedoms being eroded, taken away from us. I can point to
any number of examples.
We can look at the charter itself. In 1982, when the charter
came in, we saw all kinds of new things added to the charter of
rights and freedoms which a lot of Canadians would probably
disagree with.
In section 22 affirmative action is proposed. That is something
I disagree with. It limits our freedoms.
We see an erosion of our economic freedom when the government
claws away more money all the time. That means we have fewer
options. In fact, we have fewer options to send our children to
the schools we wish to send them to, including private schools
and religious schools.
In this case we are seeing the extinguishment of really what
amounts to a very ancient right, a right which the Government of
Newfoundland secured for its people in 1949 when it entered
Confederation. It was an issue that was extraordinarily
important to the people of Newfoundland when they entered
Confederation.
2215
In many ways the people and the Government of Newfoundland at
the time were much more forward thinking than the rest of the
country. They had essentially secured the ability of people to
send their children to the school that best reflected their
beliefs.
It is extraordinarily important whether somebody has a secular
world view or whether, and probably especially, somebody has
strong religious convictions. The ability to steep their
children in the faith of their fathers and grandfathers, their
forefathers, is extraordinarily important.
For people with strong convictions that is essentially being
wiped out by what is being proposed. People will have the right
in law if they can find the money, even though as I pointed out
before the government has taxed so much of it away. They still
had the right but it makes it extraordinarily difficult for
people to do that.
I should declare my bias. I have two children in a separate
school, a catholic school in Alberta. I am pleased that I have
the ability to do that. It means a lot to me. The ability to
teach children not only at home but through a chosen school
system the values of right and wrong, the old fashioned idea of
virtues, is very important. My friend from Elk Island did an
admirable job of pointing how important that is today.
Not long ago I read an article by Richard John Neuhaus, a
theologian who pointed out that one of the quickest ways to
essentially kill religion in a country was not necessarily to
deprive the fundamental freedoms but actually to find ways to
kill the institutions. The way to kill the institutions is to
deprive them of the things they traditionally have done, the very
practical things that they do every day, things like providing
education for people.
If that right is essentially taken away it goes a long way
toward killing those religions. Frankly that is what has
happened to a large degree over the last probably 40 or 50 years
as governments got bigger and crowded religious institutions out
of some of the things they did in the past.
We have seen those institutions become sort of less valuable in
a practical sense to their communities. We have seen them shrink
as a result. That concerns me greatly. That is exactly what is
happening in Newfoundland.
I like the idea that my friend offered and that others have
suggested. It is time to start to empower people at the local
level to allow them to choose the education system that reflects
their values, their world views. We now have a system that will
effectively represent one world view, that is the secular world
view.
That is fine. We do not have a problem with people choosing to
put their children in that situation. It is absolutely up to
them as far as I am concerned, but I believe we should all have
the right to send our children to a school that reflects that
world view.
I believe like my friend that it is time to examine the whole
idea of vouchers. The province of Alberta has gone to a
chartered school system which goes some distance toward that
goal, if not quite all the way.
We have a necessary revolution in education when we already had
an orderly evolution occurring. We already had the Pentecostal
schools and the Catholic schools agreeing to some reforms. That
was starting to happen.
The governments at the time had gone through this twice. This
is the second time we went into a referendum with the government
asking for a constitutional amendment to fix the problem. Instead
of co-operation, partnership and working with the schools, the
Government of Newfoundland acted with a sledgehammer when it
really was not necessary.
As members have pointed out when we start to change a
constitution it is an extraordinarily serious business.
It could have ramifications far beyond the ones being suggested
for Newfoundland. It could have ramifications for other
minorities. People have pointed this out. It is an
extraordinarily important point to make again.
2220
The last thing we want to do in a country like Canada is to use
a democratic tool to effectively wipe out a minority right. That
is really what we are doing in Canada today. It raises the point
whether or not we can use what is traditionally a democratic
tool, a referendum, to determine something like a minority right.
It may be democratic, but a more important question is whether it
is just. I am not convinced it is just in this situation.
Is this whole idea is necessary? Is it necessary to have a
constitutional amendment? For 1,000 years the church has
preserved education. Where do people think education came from?
It did not come from Brian Tobin. It did not come from Clyde
Wells. It has been preserved by the churches over the last 1,000
or 1,500 years.
They were the repositories for all the knowledge accumulated
from Greece, Rome and the early church. They were the
repositories of knowledge. They were the ones that established
the great universities. They were the ones that added to the
body of knowledge, people like St. Augustine, St. Thomas and St.
Anselm on up through the reformation. All their ideas became
part of the great body of knowledge that helped form our modern
society. They were the ones that helped give birth to the whole
idea of having rights entrenched in a constitution.
If we look at the American experience, very much was influenced
by the religious ideas that had accumulated until that time. The
preamble to our charter says “Whereas Canada is founded upon
principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of
law”.
If this country were founded upon a principle that recognizes
the supremacy of God, where do we think the idea came from? It
did not come from the public school. It did not come from Brian
Tobin. It came from denominational schooling and from parents
who we believe are the ones who should be driving what kind of
values their children learn.
Education would occur from the churches and from denominational
schools as it has for the last thousands of years. Reform was
already under way. Things were changing. Schools were doing
their best to ensure that there was efficiency and that people
were getting the best bang for their buck. What the government
has done goes well beyond what was necessary to achieve the
reforms it was seeking.
Forgive me if this seems a little ancillary, but we often talk
in this place about how we are a multicultural society. We are a
pluralistic society. I hear it all the time. We have a
department of multiculturalism. While I disagree with what the
government means by multiculturalism, I think we have a
multicultural society.
My people come from Norway, Ireland, Holland and England. That
is my background. We have a multicultural society. We have all
kinds of religions that come here from all over the world. We all
believe we should celebrate that. We believe it is important to
be pluralistic. We need to find ways to accommodate that.
We have that in the current system in Newfoundland. We have
pluralism. We have ability for people to celebrate their faiths
through the education system and still pick up a good
understanding of all things that traditionally constitute an
education. They have the ability to teach children the world
view that is so incredibly important to them. Unfortunately the
government does not seem to see this as an issue of pluralism or
multiculturalism.
In fact, what we are seeing now is them suggesting through their
support of this that all of these multicultural values or
pluralism that we think are important are going to be essentially
extinguished, at least in the context of this debate in
Newfoundland, in favour of a system where we have one big central
school system that effectively diminishes all that.
2225
We travel the world to see all these different cultures and
religions and we are doing what we can in this particular
instance to effectively diminish them in Canada. I think we are
making a big mistake.
I want to answer some of the objections that have been raised by
people who are in support of term 17. The first was that it was
a democratic process that brought about the government's
initiative to introduce the amended term 17. I do not disagree
with this. It was a democratic initiative. I am not going to
get into a fight about whether or not 32 days was long enough and
all those kinds of things. I want to put the question: Is it
possible to make a determination on minority rights using a
referendum? I do not think it is. It certainly is not possible,
I do not think, when we are talking about getting a bare
plurality.
At some point maybe someone down the road in the past should
have said that when it comes to issues like minority rights we
must have a higher standard. Maybe it has to be two-thirds, I do
not know. However, I would argue that in this particular case it
is extraordinarily difficult to make the argument that someone
can extinguish minority rights on the basis of the voice of the
majority.
I heard my friend across the way say “But, you know, in such
and such a district, which was mostly Pentecostal, people did not
show up in the numbers to vote that they should have”, and blah,
blah, blah. However, that is not the point.
The point is that people who believe strongly in these things
came out and voted against it. To these people, these rights are
real rights, not abstract rights. They are rights that mean a
tremendous amount to them. Therefore, can we really extinguish
them? Can the people who do not have religious convictions or
strong religious convictions just arbitrarily say “I don't
believe in these things, therefore I am going to wipe out your
rights?” I do not think they can. It is not fair and it is not
right. I disagree with the whole process.
Again, some people say this was necessary for school reform.
Maybe I have tilled that ground already, but I do not think it
was. It reminds me of a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, the
gentleman who wrote Democracy in America. I remember he
was commenting one time on the French Revolution. He said “We
were already speaking of the French aristocracy. We were already
half way down the stairs when they came up and threw us out the
window to get us to the ground a little faster”.
That is what happened in this particular case. The reform was
already well under way. The government just could not wait. It
could not co-operate with the denominational schools and decided
that it would just bring in the sledge-hammer and put an end to
and extinguish ancient rights, rights that are very important to
people.
I can tell members how important they are. I have had letters,
as I am sure my friends have had as well, from people in
Newfoundland who are begging us not to extinguish those rights
because they mean so much to them.
Some people argue that religion has no place in the school
system. I think my friend from Elk Island touched on this but I
must say it again. I would argue that people always bring some
kind of a belief system to the table. They bring a world view to
the table. Now we are going to be in a situation where all the
people of Newfoundland essentially pay to support one world view,
a secular world view, that is taught in the schools. As my
friend said, it simply cannot be otherwise. If we are going to
teach people something, they are going to end up learning a set
of values.
We say parents should be the ones who determine what those
values are. When it is their tax dollars, that money should be
used to teach their children their beliefs and their world view.
That is what we believe. I am speaking on behalf not of my party
but on behalf of some of my friends who I think support the same
point of view as I do.
The fourth point is that some people say this does not
prejudiciously affect rights granted in 1949 because they are
going to offer religious observances and religion classes.
2230
I will argue that there is a world of difference between
comparative religion and allowing somebody to be imbued with the
values that permeate a whole school and reflect the actual faith
that the students' parents believe so strongly in. To sit like a
sociologist and say here is what Muslims believe, here is what
Hindus believe, here is what people at the Solar Temple believe,
here is what Christians believe, and here is what people who are
whatever believe, and to say are the differences not interesting,
is 180 degrees away from what people believe in who want to have
their children go to a denominational school. It is a completely
different thing.
People send their children to a denominational school not to
learn about religions but to get the faith, to be imbued in the
faith. They send them there to learn the virtues that are part
of the faith. They learn about right and wrong. They do not go
to those schools to learn about comparative religion. That is
fine and that is probably a good thing to learn but it is not the
same thing at all.
Religious observances are fine but in a denominational school
religious observance happens every day. We do not wait for the
three or four days when the rest of the secular world celebrates
religious holidays. Religious observances are essentially every
day. While those things are nice tokens, I think they are
virtually meaningless to people who hold their religion
seriously.
I will deal with a fifth point which I have heard myself. Some
people say that denominational schools cause divisions. Some
people are taught something which is quite different from what
other people are taught and this sets up divisions. But all
freedoms do that. Freedom of speech causes divisions. People
disagree. This is also true for freedom of belief and freedom of
conscience. All these freedoms cause divisions.
Under the charter we recognize in Canada that religion plays an
extraordinarily important role. That is under the charter which
a Liberal government brought in. The current Prime Minister was
justice minister when the government brought the charter in. It
included in the preamble “whereas Canada is founded upon
principles that recognize the supremacy of God”.
I do not think it is unreasonable to allow schools to teach
about the principles upon which our country is founded. That is
all we are asking for. For that reason I am asking members to
oppose term 17 as it is amended and to consider very carefully
the effect this initiative will have on minority rights.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the
hon. member for stating his bias from the beginning. However, I
remind him that this debate is not about Catholic education in
Alberta. It is about the denominational school systems in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to keep that in mind when we
are dealing with this issue and the express wishes of the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The member referred to multiculturalism and pluralism. The
member for Calgary Southeast also referred to pluralism. They
said that a secular school system somehow flies in the face of
our Canadian value of pluralism. I suggest the contrary.
The system promoted by the member is one that provides for
segregation as opposed to integration. A Canadian value that is
more respected is that children of all the various denominations
and religions can go to school together, live together and
experience life together. That is something that Canadians with
Canadian values would like to see.
2235
The member referred to a way to get rid of religion is to kill
the institutions. I honestly think that was an exaggeration. I
do not think there is anyone who would seriously suggest that
this honest effort by the Government of Newfoundland supported by
all the opposition parties in the legislature of Newfoundland and
supported by 73% of the people who showed up to vote in the
referendum could really be described as an attempt to kill the
institutions or to kill religion.
I think the member does the people and the Government of
Newfoundland a disservice when he uses that kind of language.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the last
point first, I am not suggesting that what is being done in
Newfoundland is being done maliciously, not at all. I think they
are missing a very obvious point, that if we effectively take
away something the churches have done for a long time, which is
to provide for religious education in Newfoundland, then
effectively we are taking them out of the lives of people in a
very meaningful way.
When we take away all these things that the churches used to do,
practical things, things that affected people every day, then
effectively we are removing them from people's lives in a very
important way. I do think it has an impact on them ultimately. I
think it makes them less relevant overall. We have seen the
churches in decline over the past many years. Religion cannot
survive and it is not just a matter of conscience. It cannot
survive in the public square alone with the state.
I believe that the best possible situation is when there are
large institutions that serve as a check against a big
government. It is a good idea to have vibrant and strong
churches. I think that is a really good idea. They serve as a
check on some of the things the government wants to do.
We have seen other controversial issues come before this place.
We have seen churches stand up and say, “We really disagree with
that”. I think that is good and that is healthy. But when we
start to marginalize the churches by taking away these abilities
that they have had until now, then effectively we are making them
less effective. I do not think that is good.
Again, I am not saying it is a malicious thing. I am not saying
they are trying to do that. It is something that is a very
unfortunate effect though of what the government is doing.
The second point is that segregation will divide people. I
would point out that one of the things churches teach, and I am
sure my friend will remember this from his own religious
upbringing, is that churches teach people to love their
neighbour. That is something churches typically teach. That is
something we will find in denominational schools, love your
neighbour as yourself. I do not think that is particularly
harmful. I think it is good.
All those things, those virtues that are taught by churches
through denominational education strengthen the social fabric of
the country. They make us better neighbours. They make us
better citizens. They do all kinds of good things that would not
get done if it was not for the churches.
I disagree completely with what my friend has said. I would
argue that sometimes by neglect, by not teaching positive things
we end up allowing negative things to become part of what our
children believe.
I have forgotten the first point that my friend across the way
made so I will sit down now, Mr. Speaker. I did not write it
down but if he wants to ask again, he is welcome to do that.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the comment
made by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. His comment regarding pluralism really
strikes at the heart of this matter.
There is a fashionable idea among secular small l
liberals, and I do not mean to include the hon. member in that
category.
The idea among secular liberal intellectuals is that pluralism
really consists of removing differences and creating a kind of
monolithic secular culture and society unleavened by the
differences of world view between people of different faiths.
2240
That is not pluralism. It is by definition monism. It is a
monolithic view of society and culture which is not informed by
differences of conviction and differences of religious world
views. That is precisely what is being assaulted. That
authentic pluralism, which the current Newfoundland school system
is an exemplar of, is being undermined by this amendment.
I find this most worrisome. In the final paragraph of the
report of the special joint committee, it quotes an unnamed
Newfoundland school student saying: “I think that is the kind of
religious course that we should be offered in schools”—namely a
non-denominational one—“ethical choice in comparative
religion”—and the committee adds—“because most of the wars
and disturbances between countries, most civil wars are brought
upon on the basis of different religions”.
I wonder if the hon. member could comment on this. It is just
absolute nonsense.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I really must rise to the
bait.
First, I do believe that what the Government of Newfoundland is
proposing will lead to a bland homogeneity that we will all
regret some day. I have heard this red herring before.
When we cast back over the 20th century and look at the great
disasters that have occurred around the world, they were not in
the name of religion. Quite the contrary. They are quite
contrary to what all religions believe.
Look at the first world war and the second world war. Look at
what happened in the Soviet Union. Fifty million people lost
their lives because of an ideology, not because of a religion.
Look at Pol Pot and what has occurred in Cambodia where two
million people lost their lives, not because of religion. Look
at Hitler. We look at an ideology again and millions of people
lost their lives, not because of religion, to the contrary.
I would argue that even a religious war proves what people have
always said, that people have a fundamental flaw in their
character, original sin and all that kind of thing which is why I
believe it is a good idea to teach people about these things. It
helps to remind them that there is a problem of original sin and
we have to be on guard for it. That has been reflected in a lot
of the disasters in the 20th century.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made earlier today,
the motion is deemed to have been put to a vote and the recorded
division is deemed to have been requested and deferred until
Tuesday, December 9, 1997, at the end of Government Orders.
(Division deemed requested and deferred)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 10.42 p.m., this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10.46 p.m.)