GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT

Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga West.

Madam Speaker, you are going to hear a lot of factual and statistical information today concerning educational reform in Newfoundland. You are going to hear a lot of ``what ifs'' and theory about how this may or may not affect other bilateral terms of union of the other nine provinces and territories of our nation.

What you will not hear today is the voice of one group of Canadians who are the most affected by this constitutional amendment, the Newfoundland children, of which I am a mother of two. I speak from the heart when I say the status quo is unacceptable.

Let me give a brief background on Newfoundland's denominational education system. It dates back to the 1700s when the Church of England's missionaries founded one of the first schools in Bonavista to administer to both the religious and educational needs of that town.

In the mid-1800s this system was entrenched through the educational act which further divided funds between the Roman Catholics and the Protestant school boards. It is this system that still exists today and was enshrined in the terms of union in 1949 when Newfoundland elected to be the 10th province of Canada.

For some time now Newfoundlanders have realized that the system cannot continue under its current form. With the province groaning under the pressing weight of a $6 billion debt, changes to the system are essential. The people of Newfoundland have always believed in a better future for their children.

Consider the title of the 1992 report of the royal commission of inquiry into the delivery of education in Newfoundland and Labrador, ``Our Children, Our Future''. I call on my colleagues in this chamber to remember these four words ``our children, our future'' as we debate this resolution in the House today.

The proposed changes will enable the province to improve educational opportunities for our students, to bring in new technologies and to update curriculum. At present the province of Newfoundland spends the highest proportion of its total resources on education, more than most other provinces.

A greater amount of this funding than should be necessary is being used to provide for the cost of maintaining four separate school systems and 27 individual school boards for a provincial population equivalent to that of the city of Calgary, Alberta.

Savings of up to $25 million a year will be realized from the administrative changes, student transportation efficiencies and school consolidation which will result from the education reform process. The proposed reform will provide an opportunity to redirect these savings into the classroom level and benefit our students.

As it exists today, a number of students miss out on the valuable skills and courses that will prepare them to enter the workforce. In today's technical, computerized world I have heard stories of students who have literally flipped a coin to decide which sciences to study because the school did not have enough money to offer a full range of courses. Yet there was a whole other identical system in the same community.

Instead of having one comprehensive system that allows students to avail themselves with every opportunity to study a broad range of sciences, the students lose out in a system of duplication and inefficiency.

With finances stretched to the limit, school boards are often unable to provide the basic necessities. There are schools in the province today with no cafeterias and no proper janitorial services. In these schools, students are missing out on meals and they are getting sick from the general lack of cleanliness.

Is this a system that adequately prepares our students to meet the changing face of the Canadian labour market? No, it is not. It puts the Newfoundland youth at a disadvantage to their counterparts in other provinces.

With the closure of the fishery and a dwindling population, a good education is the key to ensuring our children have a bright future and not one of unemployment and dependency.

(1205 )

In addition to my personal experience with the Newfoundland school system, I am currently part of a team that is travelling across the country coast to coast with the ministerial task force on youth. We are consulting directly with young Canadians, youth service agencies, private and public sectors, schools and other concerned Canadians about the needs of young people, their expectations and their aspirations. We are looking at the issues of school to work transition, labour market entry and perceived and real barriers to entering the job market.

Everywhere I go and especially at my town hall session in St. John's on May 11, which I might add has been the largest town hall session to date, I hear of the real need for schools to make changes to reflect the changing needs of the Canadian labour force.

In the speech from the throne the Liberal government made a promise to create a better future for our children and young Canadians. This statement was made because it realizes that one of the greatest challenges facing our country is ensuring that our children obtain the skills and knowledge they need to compete in the fast changing, highly competitive world.

To meet this challenge we have to ensure children have access to quality and excellence in education. By passing this resolution we will ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the tools necessary to meet the challenges and to ensure the future of our children.

For those who are concerned that the Newfoundland government is taking control from the churches in the province, this is simply false. The proposed amendment does not abolish or undermine denominational education in this province. Rather, current rights are being updated to effect the needs of today's students and at the same time allowing for a more efficient administration and delivery of educational services in the province of Newfoundland. The modifications further allow schools to maintain religious education, activities and observances.

The majority of Newfoundlanders voted in favour of these changes on September 5, 1995. Of those who chose to vote, 54 per cent voted in favour of the government's proposal despite the fact that the churches launched a vigorous campaign designed to encourage people to vote against the plan. The Newfoundland

government did not stage a campaign, yet it won a clear majority in support of its position.

As to the claim that this referendum is imposing the will of the majority on to the rights of the minorities in the province, the denominations affected by the changes in the education system comprise 95 per cent of Newfoundland's population, hardly a minority. I would further argue with those who would say that their education in a currently uni-denominational school will be destroyed. This is just not so either. There are provisions in the current proposal to ensure, where numbers warrant, those schools will be allowed to continue their as uni-denominational.

Now that I have addressed the many concerns of the resolution I want to address the concerns of some of my colleagues who are concerned about the process that brought the debate into this Chamber. Some argue that this is being pushed through. This is completely false. It has been an issue for a long time. Because it only affects the province of Newfoundland perhaps it was not a priority for some MPs, especially given the amount of legislation that passes through this Chamber. It has always been a priority for me and for my children.

I say this to those MPs who would vote against this resolution because of the concerns over the so-called process: Do not trivialize the future of my children for a bureaucratic mentality. Put yourself in my children's shoes and do not take away their chance for a better future.

In conclusion, I want my sons and the children of Newfoundland to have every opportunity available to embrace the future, to keep up with the changing labour force requirements and in doing so, to become contributors to the Canadian economy. Amidst all the debate on the constitutional, legal and political theories, let us not lose sight of what is really at stake here, Newfoundland's future, its children.

I ask all hon. members to look above the power struggles of the church and state and the political positioning and as parents, which the vast majority of us in this Chamber are, ask themselves: Would I want my child to lose out in a system that is based on duplication of services or would I want my child to have every opportunity available to get a well-rounded education? If hon. members believe in the future of my children and all those of Newfoundland, then they should not base their opinion on the what, ifs and maybes. They should base their conclusion on the greatest natural resources that Newfoundland has to offer this country: our children. Never lose sight of them in this debate.

(1210 )

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Ind. Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I would like to make one point and then ask the member for St. John's East a question.

First, the member talked about it in her speech, as did the premier of Newfoundland in his press conference last week. He talked about the illiteracy rate in Newfoundland as being something of great concern. He talked about the difficulty the system was having and the embarrassment of the highest illiteracy rate in the country.

I found the comment very strange because I read from the red book of the premier of Newfoundland. ``Since Confederation we have made tremendous progress in education. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have built an educational system in which we can all have pride. Our university participation rates are higher than the national average. If the present trend continues, Newfoundland and Labrador will soon have education levels equal to the best in the country''.

As someone who believes in encouraging and funding national standards, that is a positive sign. I just wanted to make that comment because it conflicts with some of the comments that have been made which tend to denigrate the current education system that exists in Newfoundland.

In the speech by the member for St. John's East, she talked about the notion that the educational system would remain the same where numbers warrant. On Friday the Minister of Justice made the same comment, that the uni-denominational schools may be created where numbers warrant and where the parents choose that for their children.

The resolution before the House does not state ``where numbers warrant''. Would the member consider, seeing as it was in her speech and also stated by the Minister of Justice, amending this resolution to add ``where numbers warrant''?

Mrs. Hickey: Madam Speaker, I have not considered that as an amendment. I think the amendment we are making to justify giving our children a better education in Newfoundland is probably all that we have time to deal with.

The children of Newfoundland do not have a voice here today, but they would rather be given every opportunity possible to be better citizens rather than debating whether or not this or that amendment should be taken care of. The Term 17 amendment is all that we need to deal with. It will give our children a better education, a better future and a better life as Canadians.

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is probably more of a statement than a question.

I listened with interest to my colleague from St. John's East. A lot of questions have been troubling me and through her speech and the comments she has made, as a resident of Newfoundland, as a member of Parliament and as a person who has two sons within the

Newfoundland school system, she speaks quite clearly when she says she supports the will of the majority of the people of Newfoundland.

Two things that have been troubling me have really been answered in this little book. One of the questions in the book is: Why is the federal government involved in this matter? It is answered here quite clearly. The other question is: Can these reforms be made without a constitutional amendment? I would encourage anyone who is watching to phone our offices and ask for a copy of this little book. It contains questions and answers which may clear up all the questions in our mind.

(1215)

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as members know, I rarely speak in the House of Commons. However, this issue is of extraordinary importance to me. I have spent my life in education. I am a Roman Catholic. I am a former secondary school teacher and I formerly chaired the largest board in Canada. Most of all, I spent 21 years being a parent.

It is important to let my constituents know why I am supporting wholeheartedly the government's resolution to amend term 17 in the 1949 agreement between Canada and its youngest province, Newfoundland.

Newfoundland and Labrador has decided it wants to modernize its educational system, bringing it closer to those enjoyed by all the other provinces and territories in Canada.

As an educator, I understand its desperate wish to be sure its education system has value. Newfoundland and Labrador spends the highest amount of money per capita of any province in Canada with the poorest results. It has the highest dropout rates, the highest rates of illiteracy and the lowest standardized test scores in math, science and English. With seasonal employment in the fisheries in deep trouble, math, science and English are skills essential to Newfoundland's prosperity and to the prosperity of the entire country.

I would like to show some comparative statistics to my own riding. In Mississauga West the average family income is practically $65,000 a year. In Newfoundland it is $40,000. The average unemployment in my riding is 7 per cent. In Newfoundland it is over 30 per cent. I have 18 per cent of my population with university degrees. In Newfoundland it is less than 5 per cent.

Canada has a generous spirit. We have redistributed wealth in the good times and we equally share in the bad. Newfoundland and Labrador will soon be enduring part of a $1.5 billion cut in transfer payments. Every remaining tax dollar, both local and federal, must be put to good use.

Newfoundland and Labrador is not a poor cousin that must continue to live on the generosity of others. It must be allowed to be a full and independent partner in Confederation, a viable as well as a beautiful part of this country.

Education, preparation for the world of tomorrow, is the basis for a modern and successful Newfoundland. A system that has not matured since 1949 does not respond to the needs of today's students.

Newfoundland and Labrador has asked the permission of its voters, first through a referendum, then through a recent provincial election and now through their political leaders of all parties in the provincial House. Last year all party leaders unanimously agreed to ask us to amend their terms of union. Last week this request was unanimously supported by every MHA of every party in their House.

In 1949 term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of union enshrined a fully denominational religious education system resulting in a very large number of small schools administered by 27 boards. There are 110,456 students in 446 schools governed by 27 school boards with a budget of $525 million. I chaired a board with almost the same number of students that covered three municipalities. The smallest, Caledon, has only 7,000 students who would have remained frozen in time, one-room schoolhouses and miles of weary travel every day.

They chose to join the Peel board for all the benefits one efficiently run system could provide, special education, vocational training and French immersion. These are only dreams in Newfoundland.

When I became a trustee in 1985, I represented Ontario at a national conference. The Newfoundland trustees were then wrestling their their 27 boards, negotiating for a better way. Now 11 years and a 1992 royal commission report later, they are no further ahead. The time for negotiation is over.

Some have suggested a constitutional amendment is not necessary. However, even if an agreement to change the education system could be reached between all denominations and the provincial government, any such agreement could be challenged in a constitutional challenge on the basis that it violates term 17.

This is why an amendment is essential at this time. All schools are denominational in Newfoundland. No one denomination dominates. It is a collection of minorities. What of those who do not belong to a formal religion or to a religion that is not one of the chosen ones? Does a Jewish child convert to Catholicism? Does a Muslim immigrant have to convert to the Pentecostal faith? How do we protect the freedoms of the real minorities, the 5 per cent of Newfoundland students who do not conform to one of the recognized religions?

In the proposed new system churches will still play a significant role in the instruction of students; instruction rather than planning, teaching rather than tyranny.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a right to jurisdiction over education. They have a right to a freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. Every tax dollar paid to publicly supported schools must be squeezed and manipulated to its maximum benefit. No longer will a dollar paid to upgrade a Catholic school be multiplied by 27 for unneeded repairs to those of other denominations.

(1220)

In Ontario over the last ten years two out of every three construction dollars have been put into the separate system because that is where the need was greatest.

Funds will now be distributed in Newfoundland according to need rather than denomination. Some say French language or aboriginal rights will be affected. They will not. These are charter rights for all Canadians and will be maintained. Some say this is the thin edge of the wedge and that other provinces will follow suit, possibly eliminating Catholic schools in Ontario.

Ontario does not have the same terms of agreement. It does not have the same terms that allow such change. Denominational rights are protected in the case of the four founding provinces by the Constitution and by different terms of union. In addition, education is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction in Ontario.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador should have province-wide control of their education system, just as we have. They should have the right to create ten interdenominational boards where 27 currently exist. Where numbers warrant, separate schools will continue to exist for individual denominations. Boundaries, capital funding, transportation and other purely administrative matters will be controlled by a duly elected provincial legislature.

In summary, Newfoundland and Labrador has debated this issue for many years without coming to a negotiated agreement. Its children are suffering. Its spends the most to achieve the least. It is our poorest province. Control over education is a provincial right. Quality education is the right of every Canadian child.

We cannot allow unwarranted fear of what may happen to blind us to what is already happening. The children of Newfoundland and Labrador of every religion desperately need our support before truly effective change will happen. No tiny six-year-old should ride for hours on a bus past three or four schools to go to the school which will accept her. All children of Newfoundland should be able to go to their nearest school and receive a quality education.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Ind. Lib.): Madam Speaker, the way the member for Mississauga West denigrated the Newfoundland school system is beyond belief.

I have some comments from the former minister of education for Newfoundland, Mr. Chris Decker, on a report on education in Canada regarding Newfoundland's educational system:

The percentage of the population attaining less than 8 years of schooling has decreased from 24 per cent in 1976, compared to the then Canadian average of 9.5 per cent, to 5.6 per cent, slightly more than the Canadian average of 3.8 per cent in 1991. That is an improvement of 18.4 per cent for Newfoundland compared to an improvement of 8.4 per cent for Canada as a whole.

The numbers of students not graduating from high school in Newfoundland have decreased from 66 per cent in 1976 to 49.9 per cent in 1991. The Canadian average went from 56 per cent to 43 per cent during the same period. The numbers for Newfoundland are much better now than in 1991, the last year statistically compared to Canada.

Students in Newfoundland perform just as well as students in most other provinces and the Canadian average; results of testing of 16-year olds in reading and writing, school achievement indicators project, 1994.

(1225)

I have real problems with approaching a motion like this which is so important. As the member from Ontario asked in her remarks, will this affect Ontario? This could affect Ontario. We have had some of the best constitutional lawyers in the land say that. I want to be on record as saying I do not think we should just rubber stamp this.

The House has always been the protector of minority rights. This is a Chamber in which we are to be looking out for the disadvantaged, not the advantaged. In this case we are really missing an opportunity to be what the Chamber is supposed to be, the guardian of minority rights.

The member mentioned the system would stay the same where numbers warranted. I asked the member for St. John's East if she would support putting into the resolution the phrase ``where numbers warranted''. The Minister of Justice has stated it, the premier of Newfoundland stated it in his press conference last week, but it is not in this resolution.

I propose we amend this motion by doing a very simple thing which could bring all of us together, that the system would stay the same where numbers warranted, which is what the member said in her speech. Would the member support that addition to the resolution in the form of an amendment?

Mrs. Parrish: Madam Speaker, it is nice to see my former colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has not lost his touch. His spellbinding ability still exists. His ability to conjure up statistics at will is still very good.

I did not denigrate the residents of Newfoundland, nor did I-

Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Mississauga West made a statement that was not accurate. She accused me of conjuring up statistics at will when I quoted directly from the minister of education for Newfoundland.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming questions and comments.

Mrs. Parrish: Madam Speaker, I am sorry if I said they were conjured. As we all know, when one has spent a lot of time in academia one can always find the right statistics to suit the argument.

As far as an amending formula or amending this motion, it has been my experience in the House, which is not as broad or as deep as that of the member opposite, that whenever people cannot fight the intent of a motion logically they start amending it to destroy its intent, to confuse, to obfuscate.

I do not believe our position in the House should be to amend anything that goes on in Newfoundland. I believe we should pass this. We should leave it to Newfoundland to construct its own system, just as we have in Ontario. It is not our business because we are very afraid that someone may look at changing the system in Ontario. I would love to see the member opposite sit back quietly if someone from Newfoundland were to suggest how to change the system in Ontario.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am to speak today on a matter as interesting as the one we are now addressing. For the fourth time in its history, a legislative assembly, this time the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, has adopted a resolution asking the federal Parliament to amend the Constitution under section 43 of that Constitution.

This section allows the federal government to amend any provision of the Constitution which applies to one or more of the provinces, in this case Newfoundland and Labrador. According to section 43, any such amendment may be made by adoption of resolutions of the House of Commons and Senate and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

(1230)

In 1987, this House adopted a resolution to place the Pentecostal schools of Newfoundland on the same footing as the seven denominations recognized by the 1949 agreement, as well as to ensure their funding. This was the first constitutional amendment made under the section of concern to us today, section 43.

The second was to guarantee the linguistic equality of French and English in New Brunswick. That was in 1993. The same year, there was another constitutional amendment to permit the construction of an interprovincial bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I would point out that, in this vote, which involved approving the construction of a bridge, the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour, because we felt, and continue to feel, that this is the best long term solution in economic terms.

Today, therefore, the members of this House are preparing to pass a resolution that will lead to a new constitutional change, and I shall spare you the reading of the text. I would, however, mention that the aim of the Newfoundland legislature is to rationalize the province's education system to permit savings to be made. The aim is to put an end to denominational schools so as to cut the number of school boards-everywhere these days there is talk about downsizing the school boards, even in Quebec-in order to set up a new multidenominational school board, which will be more efficient and less costly, it is claimed.

This proposed education reform is based on the recommendations of the Newfoundland royal commission of inquiry into education, which published its report in 1992. The major obstacle faced by the Newfoundland government arises from the fact that denominational schools were guaranteed by term 17 of the Terms of Union establishing Newfoundland's entry into Canada in 1949, which is an integral part of the Canadian Constitution.

At first glance, there does not appear to be a problem, because the Government of Newfoundland could simply have passed a resolution to amend term 17 of the constitutional agreement of 1949 and then simply have it passed by this House. This time, however, the provincial legislature wanted to hold a referendum first to consult the people of Newfoundland before passing its resolution.

The referendum question asked Newfoundlanders whether they would allow the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce a resolution calling for the amendment of term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. It must be pointed out that there was no obligation to hold a referendum to amend this term, since the amending formula in section 43 of the Constitution requires only that a resolution be passed by the Newfoundland legislature, the House of Commons and the Senate in such cases.

Yet, the Government of Newfoundland felt it had to hold a referendum in order to consult the population beforehand, thus

showing great respect for democracy. As we well know, referenda were not so widely used 30 years ago but today, with all the countries in the world joining large consortiums in Europe, Asia and North America, we will see more and more of them.

In this referendum, which, by the way, is the consultation mechanism par excellence and is now gaining popularity around the world, the people of Newfoundland expressed their desire to amend the extent to which and the way the various religious denominations get involved in the administration of the education system. They endorsed the government proposal by a 54 per cent majority, which is not that much. Only 52 per cent of all the people exercised their right to vote.

(1235)

This referendum was held on September 5, 1995. In the following months, the Prime Minister of Canada said in response to the Newfoundland premier's formal request that he intended to table for adoption the text of the constitutional resolution in February 1996. In his letter to his provincial counterpart, the Prime Minister gives no indication whether he agrees with the referendum result; he simply accepts it and says he will table the resolution in the House.

In his response, the Prime Minister of Canada showed clearly that he accepts the result of a referendum in which 52 per cent of all registered voters participated and in which 54 per cent of the ballots cast is an acceptable majority. The parallel with the referendum situation in Quebec is impossible to ignore.

Although the issue of Quebec sovereignty is much more important and has a greater impact than today's constitutional amendment, that fact is that the Prime Minister has established a precedent by accepting the results of the referendum held in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Prime Minister said in this House on several occasions-I will not quote from Hansard but I think everyone remembers the various times he said this-that a result of 50 per cent plus one in a referendum on Quebec sovereignty was not enough. He said a result of 50 per cent plus one was not an acceptable majority in the case of a Quebec referendum. Today, the same Prime Minister recognizes the results of a referendum in which only 54 per cent voted for a constitutional amendment and only 52 per cent of registered voters participated. We all know that voter participation in the Quebec referendum was slightly higher. It actually was over 90 per cent.

Are we to conclude from this that, for the Prime Minister, a referendum in which only 52 per cent of registered voters have exercised their right to vote is good enough anywhere in Canada except in Quebec, where 90 per cent of the population participated in the referendum and are about to do so again soon? Are we also to conclude that, for the Prime Minister, a referendum held across a province where a majority voted yes, with 54 per cent, this is good enough, except in Quebec of course, where 54 per cent is just not good enough? In his mind, according to the figures quoted or hinted at by friends of the regime and business people, it would take a 65 per cent vote, perhaps as high as 70 per cent, it is not clear, for a yes victory in a Quebec referendum to be recognized.

This makes us realize how totally inconsistent the Prime Minister of Canada and his government are. A referendum is a democratic public consultation process, and the cornerstone of democracy is precisely the 50 per cent plus one rule. It is the majority of the population making a choice.

In the information papers we have received, one of which I believe is from the Department of Justice, there are striking similarities there. Question 4 states: ``Why do church and government leaders in Newfoundland and Labrador not settle this issue without constitutional amendments being necessary?'' The paper in favour of passing the resolution reads: ``Having negotiated intensively for three years, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was unsuccessful in obtaining the consent required to implement the necessary changes. In addition, a further attempt by the Newfoundland and Labrador education minister to negotiate an agreement also failed and did not produce an agreement on key reforms''.

In Quebec, we have been trying for 30 years and we are still waiting. So far, every attempt to reach an agreement has failed.

(1240)

The document submitted to us by the Department of Justice also included the question: ``Why are these changes necessary?'' The answer given is that the current system must be changed, because it creates a complex administrative structure generating overlap and inefficiencies.

What difference is there with the Bloc Quebecois? The document states that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has come to the conclusion that eliminating these costly inefficiencies and freeing up resources to introduce other operational changes is the best way to improve its education system. Eliminating costly inefficiencies is, of course, exactly what Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois are asking for.

Shortly before I rose to discuss this issue, the House was debating the very real possibility of conducting an in-depth review of the Senate's role, and even of considering abolishing it, given the current situation. This suggestion has nothing to do with the quality of the men and women who sit in the Senate. Rather, it is based on the fact that this institution is an anachronism in our system. It prevents it from functioning well and it is also costly for nothing. The figure of $65 million per year was mentioned.

So, Newfoundland wishes to make some changes to its system to improve its situation. This is exactly what Quebec seeks to do, albeit on another scale.

The document also states that ``it is those affected by the changes that approved them''. This is in reference to the people who voted in the referendum held in Newfoundland. So, according to the Department of Justice, when a referendum will be held on Quebec's sovereignty, those affected, namely Quebecers, will have the right to express their views, because they will be the ones affected by the outcome.

Further on in the same Department of Justice document, in response to Question No. 9, the following is asked: ``Did the government of Newfoundland and Labrador act arbitrarily?'' Response: ``On February 22, 1996, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador received a majority mandate with the campaign promise to reform the denominationally-based school system''. Here again, we note the similarity with Quebec. Let me just remind the Liberal MPs, in case they have forgotten, which I doubt, that the Parti Quebecois received a majority mandate with the campaign promise of holding a referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec.

Another point catches my attention as well. Here we are speaking of a constitutional amendment which might impact upon other provinces. Yet the Liberal government, the government in this House, did not ask to choose the wording for the referendum question. It was drafted solely by the Government of Newfoundland, with no participation whatsoever by the federal government or any other provincial governments. Odd, because in the case of Quebec the federal government absolutely insists on taking part in preparations for the wording of the question. Yet that question, as will be seen later, will be asked of Quebecers by Quebecers. As in Quebec, however, the proponents of the no side in Newfoundland are unanimous in criticizing the question, as we have seen in the press reports, for being ambiguous, not explicit enough. But no attention was paid to that. The question was asked by the people of Newfoundland, it was answered by the people of Newfoundland, and the federal government did not get involved in drafting the question, whereas it did indicate that it might do so for Quebec.

In this connection, we have listed a few questions that were not raised about the recent Newfoundland referendum, yet are being raised in the case of Quebec. I will run through a few of them quickly, since I think I have only four or five minutes left.

A lot has been said on the question of a simple majority. The Prime Minister has intimated a number of times in the House, as I said earlier, that a simple majority might not be enough to ensure Quebec's sovereignty. In July 1948-and my colleague from Berthier-Montcalm has looked into this much more deeply than I-barely 52 per cent of Newfoundland electors agreed to join the Canadian federation in a referendum, and this was the second referendum in a few months, with the first one being held on June 3, 1948. So, the results of the first one were not accepted.

(1245)

In the case of the second referendum, which passed with 52 per cent, 48 per cent of Newfoundlanders voted no, not wanting to join with Canada. It was not this figure that was taken into account, but rather the vote of the democratic majority, and Newfoundland joined Confederation.

Since referenda will be used increasingly, we will see internationally that the results of referenda committing peoples' future will be ever closer. The law of the majority will never change. In November 1994, 52 per cent of Swedes voted to join the European Union; although 48 per cent voted against, the rule of the majority prevailed. Two weeks later, Norway voted against joining by 52 per cent; 48 per cent of Norwegians were in favour, but the law of the majority prevailed.

The rule of a simple majority in a referendum is universal, because it is the only democratic and practicable rule. When a society says ``one person, one vote'', it does not mean ``one person, two thirds of a vote'' or ``one person, a vote and a third''. Everyone's vote is equal. This is why a referendum is based on a majority.

When Quebec joined the federation, there was neither a referendum nor an election. Quebec joined the federation by parliamentary vote. In the first Quebec referendum on sovereignty in 1980, and in the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, the federalists participated in the campaign without ever imposing any conditions regarding a majority of more than 50 per cent, because until then they were confident they would win. But, as soon as things start heating up, they want to change the rules of the game. In Quebec, like everywhere else, winning a referendum requires a simple majority, that is to say, 50 per cent plus one vote.

I have noted on several occasions that our friends in the Reform Party have, through their leader, taken a clear stand on this issue. I am convinced others have taken the same position, although I have been unable to read the reports in other newspapers, I did read his statement that:

[English]

``A 50 per cent plus one vote for independence is sufficient for Quebec to leave Confederation, according to the Reform leader, but the terms and conditions would have to be subject to a referendum in the rest of Canada''. I agree with that. ``I do not know of any other threshold than 50 per cent plus one''. That is what went on everywhere.

[Translation]

There is also Don MacPherson, who wrote in a recent article in the Gazette:

[English]

``I hate to test his legendary modesty but I am forced to admit that my good friend Bernard Landry''-I do not know if it is true that he is friends with Bernard Landry-``is right again. Landry, who is vice-premier in the Parizeau government''-so this goes back a few months-``says a simple majority is good enough to decide a referendum on sovereignty. The vice-premier could have also pointed out that it was good enough for federalists in the 1992 Quebec referendum on the Charlottetown constitutional accord. What is sauce for the federalist goose is sauce for the sovereignist gander''. He ended by saying: ``And by current world standards of democracy, a yes vote in the referendum would give a Quebec declaration of independence impeccable legitimacy''.

[Translation]

This does not mean it would be easy, but it would be legal. We could repeat some of the other arguments that were never made again in relation to what is happening elsewhere in Canada. There is no dispute about the Newfoundland referendum, which was only won by a few points and in which only about half the population voted. But they are already starting to set the rules for the next referendum in Quebec.

They are now addressing the issue of borders and minorities. They are telling us the borders of Quebec might change, that minorities may not want to stay within these borders, that the territory may be partitioned, who knows. Yet, Canada as a country has recognized many countries in the world-I will name a few-with the borders they had before. Canada has recognized the two sovereign countries that resulted from the partition of Czechoslovakia: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Ottawa was one of the first capitals to recognize Ukraine's independence in 1991, and that of the Baltic states, as we remember. In the case of the Baltic states, which became sovereign through democratic means, I think Canada was the first country to recognize their independence and all their borders. Yet, the fact that all those countries have significant minorities does not take anything away from the results of a democratic referendum.

(1250)

As for the resolution proposed by the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, I will support it because the people have expressed in a provincial referendum their desire to amend the extent to which and the way religious denominations get involved in the administration of the education system. I, however, would like to point out one thing, namely that the federal government seems to feel there are two kinds of democracy in this country: one for Canada and one for Quebec.

[English]

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Ind. Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies has brought up a very important point of which every member of the House should be aware. It has to do with the precedent which is being set and the way the Bloc sees this precedent in terms of its next referendum. The member just said that in the next referendum if 50 per cent plus one decide to leave Canada, then how can there be one rule for Quebec and a different rule for Newfoundland? I believe that was the basic point which he made.

Since 1980 I have watched the premier of Newfoundland work in the House of Commons and work for Canada, not just domestically but internationally. I do not think there would be a person in the House who would deny the fact that the premier of Newfoundland is probably the best communicator Canada has had in years in terms of putting our presence, our spirit and our sovereignty on the front burner. He has been out there. His tactics have at times been borderline genius when it comes to communications. However, his tactics on this resolution are going to create a problem for us in the House and in the country which we have not thought through. Fifty-four per cent in the referendum at this time is establishing a benchmark. We all know what the polls are saying in Quebec and they are much more than 54 per cent.

It is important for all of us to realize that this Chamber is essentially being used as a rubber stamp for a constitutional amendment. A few years ago when we were talking about this issue a senator claimed that these rights and these systems are part of the arc of Confederation. Today we are simply going to rubber stamp the request.

(1255 )

The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies put us all on notice in his speech just a few minutes ago when he asked how, on a referendum, there can be one rule for Newfoundland and a different one for Quebec. I hope when members think about supporting this resolution tonight they will think of the long term consequences.

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau: Madam Speaker, those were mostly comments that my hon. colleague and neighbour-seeing that we have adjacent offices in the West Block-made. First, he said that the premier of Newfoundland was certainly the best communicator in Canada; we, on this side, have always called him Captain Canada, and this was not meant to be derogatory in any way. We do agree that, as a communicator, the premier of Newfoundland has spearheaded practically everything that was done in Canada. That is probably also one of the reasons why he got elected.

My hon. colleague commented on my calling the attention of the House to the fact that Newfoundland had just set a precedent, but I was just making a connection between the case of Newfoundland, where a 54 per cent result is readily recognized in this House, and Quebec, where the application of democratic rules is being questioned.

I think that what my hon. colleague is saying it that we are setting a precedent by passing this here. The precedent has already been set anyway. It was set at the international level, at Charlottetown, when the results were not questioned, because the 50 per cent plus one rule came into play. They were not questioned with respect to Meech, the 1980 referendum or any other referendum until now.

I sincerely believe the Prime Minister of this country is right when he says the basic problem and the first thing we should do, not myself personally, but those of my constituents who still believe this is possible-yes, some still do-would be to try to persuade Quebecers they must remain a part of Canada. Under those circumstances, a referendum would not be any problem.

Needless to say I have my doubts. I have been concerned with politics for 30 years-not actively involved but at least watching what is happening on the political scene-and in the past 30 years, we have never succeeded in having Quebec's minimum demands recognized. The only way out for us is to hold a referendum on sovereignty and we will win this referendum.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I disagree most emphatically with the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies and the member for Broadview-Greenwood, who both assert that this whole debate today has to do with referenda. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many experts in legal matters who know far better than I do, it has nothing to do with referenda.

The legislative assembly of a province has sought a constitutional change which it is perfectly entitled to do. If for example the assembly in either of the provinces of Quebec or Alberta had a situation on which it was unanimously agreed a constitutional change was wanted, I would expect that the province would take the request for the change to the federal government. That is exactly as it should be.

When that request arises in this House, I would expect as is going to be the case today, the Parliament of Canada would decide on that request in a free vote. When there is a vote in this Chamber on a constitutional issue, as we have in the case with Newfoundland today, or any other province that may bring a constitutional issue before the House, it should be a free vote so the people of Canada shall speak on the issue and decide.

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau: Madam Speaker, in fact, the Government of Newfoundland did not have to consult the people. It simply wanted to increase the legitimacy of its position in an apparently extremely contentious debate. That is why a referendum was held, and why the issue is taken up in the House, but there was no need for that in Newfoundland.

We will support the motion for two reasons. First, because a democratic referendum to that end was successful, and second, because we met with the premier of Newfoundland, whom we admire a great deal and who gave us a minimum of guarantees that minority rights would be respected.

(1300)

[English]

Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the primary responsibility of the Parliament of Canada is not to concern itself with the reform of the Newfoundland and Labrador education system. Rather, the fundamental responsibility of the Parliament of Canada is to safeguard and protect the existing terms of the Canadian Constitution and to protect the enshrined rights of minorities as presently set forth in the existing Constitution. This is not merely a Newfoundland and Labrador issue; this is a Canadian issue affecting Canada as a nation.

The adoption of this resolution to amend term 17 by the Parliament of Canada will have far reaching, detrimental consequences for the nation, the Canadian people as a whole. Therefore I do not support this resolution.

This resolution is not properly before this honourable House. Procedurally the Parliament of Canada is relying on section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to provide for an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more but not all provinces; in this case one province. Section 43 provides that such an amendment can be made bilaterally, between the province affected and the Parliament of Canada, through resolutions passed respectively by the provincial legislature, by Parliament, by both the House of Commons and the Senate.

The Minister of Justice in his address to the House of Commons on May 31, 1996 gave an example of a bilateral change involving the fixed link with Prince Edward Island which required a change in terms of its union with the federation. With the greatest respect to the Minister of Justice, there is absolutely no comparison between the fixed link and the rights of minorities in Canada.

Procedurally Parliament is in error to entertain a section 43 resolution because the issue before the House does not merely affect Newfoundland and Labrador. It affects all of Canada. It affects every Canadian. It goes to the very heart of the basic, fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms set forth in the Canadian Constitution.

When a province and Parliament can bilaterally act pursuant to section 43 to substantially modify without consent the minority rights of the Canadian people, we have to be more than concerned. In this instance the consent of the religious denominations has not been obtained. To act without this consent is inexcusable and unjustifiable.

To appease the provincial conscience a referendum was held in which 52.5 per cent of the eligible voters voted; 54.9 per cent voted in favour, 44.9 per cent voted no, and 422 ballots were rejected.

Although the referendum is not a prerequisite to a section 43 resolution it should be noted that the express consent of the religious denominations must and should be obtained. The constitutional rights of the denominations cannot be waived by the mere passing of a resolution by the Newfoundland government. Therefore unless and until the express consent of all religious denominations are obtained this section 43 resolution is procedurally and substantively not properly before Parliament.

In any event, section 43 cannot be read in isolation of section 93 of the Constitution Act. Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 confers on provincial legislatures the exclusive power to make laws in relation to education. Section 93 restricts provincial power to make laws in relation to education by adding four qualifying sections. Subsection 1 specifically provides that nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons has by law in the province at the time of union.

Section 93 read in conjunction with section 43 makes it clear that this is not merely a Newfoundland and Labrador issue. This is an issue that affects every province, every Canadian, every religious denomination, every parent in Canada. It affects every minority right with respect to religion, education and language rights.

(1305)

This section 43 resolution is not properly before the House. In any event, the substantive purpose and effect of this resolution is to undermine the existing and inherent rights of the church, the religious denominations' right to govern and to teach values consistent with the fundamental teachings of their respective religious denominations.

The effect of the proposed amended term 17 will be to permit the Government of Newfoundland to enact legislation which, as itself concedes, would prejudicially affect the existing constitutional rights of the religious denominations and minority classes of persons and thus violate term 17 as it stands.

The effect of that legislation will be to effectively dismantle the existing denominational school system in Newfoundland. The proposed amendment to term 17 will eliminate constitutionally protected rights held by religious denominations, and this will be done without their consent.

The initiative to amend the Constitution and thus to take away their minority rights was taken without agreement. It was also taken notwithstanding former Premier Wells' statement in the House of Assembly on March 12, 1993, when he said just before announcing an election: ``Mr. Speaker, in response to the church leaders' concerns that implementing certain recommendations of the royal commission report would jeopardize their traditional rights, government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking change to the Constitution that would remove the constitutionally protected rights of classes of people specifically provided for''.

However, present day events show that commitment was not kept. In light of this, this honourable House has a grave responsibility to protect, defend and safeguard the constitutional rights of our denominational schools and the rights of all minorities in Canada.

The House should be alerted to the words of the justice minister on May 31 with respect to the future section 43 resolutions: ``We shall make up our minds on the facts of those cases if and when they arise. If they do not meet the standards which we think are appropriate we can decline to give our support''.

I ask the honourable House should we leave the constitutional minority rights of Canadians in the hands of the politicians of the day to set the standards and to decide to change the inherent constitutional rights of the Canadian people at their political whim? I think not.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, amending the Constitution of Canada is always very serious business and is to be approached by the House with the diligence and careful study it deserves, whether the amendment affects the entire country or only one province.

The resolution before the House relates only to one province. More specifically, the proposed amendment repeals term 17 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada and substitutes for it certain changes as defined in the schedule called ``Amendment to the Constitution of Canada'' tabled by the Minister of Justice. It first appeared in the Order Paper and Notice Paper on Thursday, May 30.

(1310 )

At this juncture it is useful to remind us that Canada's Constitution since 1867 has made it clear that education lies within the legislative authority of the provinces, whether they were the original founding provinces of our Confederation or joined later.

When Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949 the clause in the terms of union dealing with education stated that the Newfoundland legislature will not have authority to make laws prejudicially affecting any right or privilege of denominational schools as they existed at the time of the province's entry into Confederation.

Today the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a publicly funded school system, the governance and operation of which is in the hands of seven denominations, Anglican, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Salvation Army, Seven Day Adventists and the United Church.

In other words, there must be denominational involvement in decisions affecting the composition of the school boards, the establishment and closure of schools, the hiring of teachers, the establishment of school district boundaries and the distribution of public funds. The current education system has therefore produced a large number of small schools offering close proximity to each other. School children are bused to their own denominational schools elsewhere even though there are schools in their own neighbourhoods or communities.

The need for administrative changes in the school system for efficiency in transportation of students and for consolidation of schools has been evident for quite some time. In March 1992 the government established royal commission released its report entitled ``Our Children: Our Future'' which recommended fundamental changes to Newfoundland's education system. Term 17 requires denominational consent for changes in the province's education system unless amendment to Canada's Constitution as envisioned in the motion before us is passed.

The Government of Canada has a duty to study and respond to the resolution on this issue as passed unanimously by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Members of the Canadian Parliament have the obligation to diligently study all sides of the issue. On a free vote I support the government resolution as tabled by the Minister of Justice.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has documented that it first tried to achieve consensus with the religious denominations in the province to attain the necessary educational reform without constitutional amendment. The first meeting of the provincial government and church leaders happened in November 1992. Attempts to reach a consensus were pursued by way of exchange of letters and joint meetings on many occasions, as recently as April of this year. At one time private mediation was tried. Although a framework agreement was reached recently, and this is welcomed, it is the most recent position of the provincial government that such an agreement is tenuous and could be withdrawn by any party to the agreement or challenged in court by any citizen.

On the other hand, opponents to the proposed amendment to term 17 feel the framework agreement should be allowed and given a chance to work. They argue substantial reform of the province's educational system can be achieved without amending the Constitution. They further argue that repeal of term 17 would endanger denominational rights to education in Newfoundland and could set a precedent that threatens the same and other minority rights across Canada.

This is the nub of the issue as seen by the opposition. I believe the opposition is honest and sincere. It has received opinions from its legal advisers that Newfoundland legislation adopting the proposals outlined in the document ``Framework for School Board Consolidation'' would not be found by the courts to be in violation of term 17 of the present terms of union, that amendment to term 17 would create a risk to denominational school guarantees in other provinces.

(1315 )

These are the fears of those who oppose the resolution. They are sincere in their beliefs. I would like to assure them if I could that they have nothing to fear.

While the Government of Newfoundland will have greater administrative control, the denominational feature of the province's educational system is protected. In fact, uni-denominational schools will be established for individual denominations where requested by parents and where student numbers warrant.

The denominations will retain control over the religious aspects of schooling but a reduced number of interdenominational school boards will be established for greater efficiency in the system. To this latter recommendation, there is no dispute. There is no debate. Both sides on the issue agree.

The Newfoundland referendum on the issue, although not required for the process of constitutional amendment, was conducted by the Newfoundland government to gauge the sentiments of her citizens. Fifty per cent voted in favour of change. True, only 52 per cent of eligible voters cast their ballots but this I submit is a statement in itself.

Although the Newfoundland government used a referendum, the proposed constitutional amendment will not give support to Quebec separatists. Their agenda is to weaken and break Canadian Confederation. Quite the contrary, the amendment before us now is to strengthen the educational system in Newfoundland and to ensure co-operative federalism works at its best.

I should also emphasize that religious rights are not being fundamentally changed, only administrative rights. I agree with the Minister of Justice that minority language rights, aboriginal rights and other minority rights in and beyond Newfoundland, throughout Canada, are not in jeopardy.

The amendment to Term 17 does not create a precedent in the future for the situation in Newfoundland is unique. Future requests for constitutional amendments from any province will be judged as the present one is, solely on the merits of the facts.

I honestly believe that minority rights of any kind are not in danger. I am proud to tell the House that even long before I entered this hallowed Chamber, I participated actively in defence of French language rights in Manitoba when they were threatened in the early 1980s.

I have continued to advocate equity for all, for equal opportunities for people with disabilities, visible minorities, First Nations people and for women, for equity in our society. I will not stand idly by if minority rights are ever in peril.

We shall not fear to be proud of our national shared values, heritage and traditions. We shall not fail to be proud of our Confederation's eminent standing in the world community. We shall not fear of our trust in each other as citizens of Canada. 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 coming 21st century with confidence, secure in our history, generosity and integrity as a people.

Amending Term 17 is an appeal to our confidence and understanding as Canadians. It is a message that Confederation works. It is a message that our democracy is vibrant. It is a message that when we secure a bright future for one of our provinces, Newfoundland, its educational system, we secure a bright future for across Canada.

The people of Newfoundland determined their future when their province entered Confederation in 1949. The people of Newfoundland today would like to determine their future in Canada as Canada enters the 21st century. Let us pass this resolution now before us, for greater certainty of the future of all of us.

(1320 )

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Ind. Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member stated in his eloquent address that there was a provision that uni-denominational schools may be created where numbers warrant and where the parents choose that for their children. The Minister of Justice made that same statement when he gave his address to the Chamber last Friday. That statement is not reflected in the constitutional amendment.

The member spoke about this in his speech. Would he support an amendment to the current resolution that would include ``where numbers warrant''?

Mr. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words. The will of the Newfoundland government to establish denominational schools for school children where the numbers warrant is within the legislative authority of the province. The federal government should not intrude on that legislative authority.

The issue before us is a process where we will give the Government of Newfoundland the authority to proceed, consulting with her people from time to time. It is known that the numbers that will warrant today may not be the same numbers that will warrant tomorrow. Communities change.

I was on a school board. I know at one time the number 36 would warrant and later on the number 17 would warrant. If we fix the number today we will imprison the possibility of change in the future and the possibility of the Newfoundland government to see the present, whatever the present is, and adjust to the particular moment for the greater benefit of her citizens.

Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, if I understood the member correctly, he is saying that the current protection which exists in the Constitution for denominational schools is part of the ark of Confederation. Is he now saying that it is time for the national Chamber, the Government of Canada, the protector of enshrined rights such as these to walk away? Is that what the member is saying?

Mr. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, far from it. The Government of Canada has made it very clear that when minority rights are in danger it is ready to stand up and protect those rights.

The resolution that is before us is to make it clear and respond positively to the request of one provincial government. It is a part of our fabric and a part of our Confederation. Of course certain rights will be limited in one way. Of course there will be no denominational school for one school child. However, we cannot use that specific example because what is at stake here is reasonableness and understanding. I believe that the people of Newfoundland have spoken by saying that they would like to reform the educational system for the greater good of their school children for today and tomorrow.

(1325 )

Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate to say a few words on a issue that is dear to my heart. By way of parading my credentials, I should inform the House that before coming here I was actively involved in education. I was a school principal and a school superintendent.

During the 1969 reorganization of education in the province which permitted the coming together of the integrated group, the Presbyterian, Salvation Army, Anglican and United, I was the president of the provincial teachers' organization and in that capacity I was actively involved in the negotiations which culminated in the 1969 Newfoundland schools act. Therefore, I have some familiarity with the issues which are at play here.

I should also tell the House that in the Newfoundland referendum last September I voted no. It is not that I am opposed to reform of the educational process, I voted no because I had some concerns about how the question was put. I felt that it ought to have been put to each of the seven classes which would be affected by the change so we would know whether each of the classes, by majority, had opted to give up their rights pursuant to Term 17. That was not done and that was my reason for voting no.

I am very supportive of the need for educational reform. I could tell the House many horror stories on the subject from personal, firsthand experience, which points to the urgency of what the Newfoundland government is trying to do in reforming the education system.

Quite apart from the current economic bind in which every government finds itself, even in earlier times we saw some horrendous wastes of money in the name of denominational education. There were cases in which if one denomination received money for school construction, a constitutional obligation required the government to give a proportionate amount to the other denominations, whether they had a need for it or not. Newfoundland, in particular, could not afford that kind of duplication of expenditures.

As I only have 10 minutes I want to stay as close as I can to the issue which we are debating today.

I have had much correspondence on this issue from people throughout the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have heard the concerns of the many in Newfoundland who are opposed to the constitutional change. These concerns are based on the premise that the proposed change is a backward step, is a move away from a Christian education system. Those concerns, I believe, are honestly held. I not only respect them, I happen to be in complete sympathy with those concerns.

Unfortunately, those concerns have been fueled and reinforced by misinformation and rhetoric in the province that the provincial government's real agenda is the creation of a God-less, secularized school system. I do not share that view. A fair reading of the amendment before us today will show that the church's role in education will continue and will be constitutionally protected.

The issue here is who will run the schools. That is really the only issue in so far as Newfoundland is concerned. I respect that some of my colleagues have other concerns about minority rights, language rights and aboriginal rights, which are matters that the Minister of Justice has addressed. I will stay with the issue that I know best as it relates to Newfoundland.

I repeat that the issue, in my view, is who will run the schools. I thought the United Church of Newfoundland, one of the affected classes in so far as this amendment is concerned, put it very well a couple of weeks ago, on May 17, in a new release which read:

We have frequently and formally indicated our willingness to relinquish all administrative control of education in favour of a system in which the churches would retain solely the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances.

This is a statement from the United Church but I think it could be echoed by some of the other denominations involved in this endeavour. That statement puts it very well.

This exercise is not about secularizing the system. Indeed on reading the amendment it is very clear on that particular point that all seven churches will continue to have rights and will be able to exercise those rights. To that extent the amendment is once again enshrining and continuing the constitutional protection afforded those churches in 1949 when Newfoundland joined Canada.

The real issue is who will run the schools. I have always believed that when we are spending public money whether it be on education, health, road construction or whatever, there ought to be a system of direct accountability to the people who pay the bills. It is the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador who pay the education bills, not the churches. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador pay the bills.

I do not have to explain the system of accountability. We have the same system. We are part of the British parliamentary system as is Newfoundland. The system is simple: A group of people is elected; a government is formed; it brings in a budget and it has to get that budget sustained in the House of assembly of that province. Part of that budget is the education expenditure, how the money will be disbursed to improve the education in that province.

Given our tradition in this House, and in Newfoundland as well, it is absolutely axiomatic that the people who pay the piper should call the tune. The electors of the province ought to have the final say as to the disbursement of funds for education. That is what the amendment is all about. It takes the governance, the running of the schools, out of the hands of the churches as provided in the current term 17 prior to the proposed amendment. It takes the governance out of the hands of the churches and puts it into the hands of government. I believe that is where it belongs.

I made reference earlier that I could tell some horror stories on this issue. Most of them would have to do with that particular issue, that when it came down to a government wanting to exercise its judgment and accountability to the people on issues relating to education expenditure in Newfoundland, its hands were always tied because there was a constitutional provision which prevented it from doing that.

This amendment will do two things, both of which are positive. It will put the governance of Newfoundland schools into the hands of the elected which is where it belongs in the first place. I could go through a long history lesson going back to 1723 when the churches established the first schools and why it did not evolve that way. In the late 1880s when it was enshrined in legislation the die was cast. The evolution had been such that no politicians worth their salt would rush in and change what was a working system.

The system has not been working as well in recent times. I only have 10 minutes. If I had two or three hours I could spend a fair amount of it talking about the contribution the churches have made to education in Newfoundland. That is not what this debate is about. This issue does not have anything to do with railroading or denigrating the churches. That is not the issue.

(1335)

I am a product of that system. The precursor of the integrated system in Newfoundland was the so-called amalgamated system. My elementary years were spent in the amalgamated system. My final year of high school was in the Salvation Army system. I taught and was a principal in a Salvation Army school. I was a principal in an amalgamated school and in a new integrated school. In terms of education and career, I am a product of that system. I could wax long and hard about the contribution the system has made.

That brings me to my second point. This amendment does two things. It puts the governance of the schools into the hands of the government, the people of the province, which is where it belongs. The other is it continues the church involvement, which has made such a marvellous contribution to education and the enshrinement and promotion of values in Newfoundland over two and one-half centuries.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Ind. Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my friend from Burin-St. George's. I want to seek clarification of a remark he made, that the person who pays the piper calls the tune. In other words, if I understood the member correctly, it was to let the legislators call the shots on how the schools will be run.

If the member was speaking in terms of efficiency, school construction so that there is no duplication, creating a central construction authority for maximizing economic efficiencies, I do not have any problem with that. I was not sure if he was suggesting that the values in a Catholic or Christian education would be something he would relegate to the person who signs the cheques. I have always held the view that there is a different ambience between a Catholic education and a public education.

Perhaps the member could elaborate on that. I was beginning to think he was suggesting that legislators basically call the program for all forms of education in the province of Newfoundland. I was not sure if that is exactly what he meant.

Mr. Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Broadview-Greenwood for his question. I have to say to him that I liked it better when he was here over my left shoulder and I could consult with him more often, however, I am happy to see him in the House.

I do not think the member disagrees with my phrase that who pays the piper should call the tune, that is to say the taxpayers, not the legislators. The legislators are only there on behalf of the people of Newfoundland. When I mentioned the person paying the piper, I meant the people of the province, the electorate, generally. They have spoken on the issue. They spoke in a referendum on it. They spoke in the February 22 election. Mr. Tobin made it clear in his platform that he would proceed with educational reform. There is no question about the province as a whole.

If the member wants to know if I am being politically safe on this one, a majority of the people in my riding voted in the referendum for this change. Quite apart from that, I did not get into what was politically safe. In my speech I got into what I felt was the right thing to do.

(1340)

To respond more directly to the hon. member's question, under this system, under the proposed amendment, what has happened in Newfoundland for two and one-half centuries will continue. There will be a partnership on the program issue. Some of the program content does not have much requirement in terms of value systems. I am not sure how one can teach math with a religious bias, for example. The churches have always had and will continue to have under this amendment a partnership role with the legislature, with the Government of Newfoundland in terms of program which is pretty clear in the amendment. It says so very clearly.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, during the course of this debate a number of concerns have been raised about the proposed amendment to term 17 which this House is considering. Although it would be possible to speak about the benefits of the reforms proposed by the Government of Newfoundland, as many of my colleagues have done, I will take this

opportunity to briefly address some of the concerns that have been voiced about proceeding with the resolution.

One of the concerns that has been raised is that this House is merely acting as a rubber stamp regarding the request of the Government of Newfoundland to adopt this resolution. It is very important to note this is not the case. Several of my colleagues have already noted that the proposed amendment to term 17 is needed to allow the Government of Newfoundland to modernize its educational system and to eliminate costly duplications that currently exist. For this reason the Newfoundland House of Assembly adopted its own resolution to amend term 17 of the terms of union on October 31, 1995.

Because this is an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, Newfoundland cannot act alone in this matter. Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires that amendments of this sort, those that relate to constitutional provisions that apply to one or more but not all provinces can only be made where both the relevant provincial legislatures and the Parliament of Canada authorize such amendments. In the present case this means that even though the Newfoundland House of Assembly has already passed its own resolution authorizing this amendment, this House must also adopt a resolution authorizing the Governor General to issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada.

Even though the Government of Newfoundland has requested that we adopt this resolution, it is important to note that this House does not play the role of a rubber stamp during this process. Instead, it is the role and indeed the responsibility of this House and each member of it to carefully consider the proposed amendments and form an independent judgment before deciding whether to authorize a resolution approving it.

In this instance the government has carefully examined the proposed amendment on its merits and is satisfied that the changes sought by the Newfoundland House of Assembly should go forward. The factors that were taken into account by the federal government when forming this judgment were eloquently set forth by the Minister of Justice when he introduced this resolution in the first place.

Another concern that has been raised is that the proposed amendment to term 17 will mean the end of religious education in Newfoundland. Again it is very important to note this is not the case. It becomes clear from a reading of the proposed amendment that religious education will remain an important feature of the school system in Newfoundland and that the churches will continue to play an important role in the school system there.

I will briefly review the amendment to show that it makes provision for the continuance of religious education, activities and observances. Paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment, which provides that all publicly funded schools shall be denominational schools, provides that all the denominational classes that now have rights under term 17 shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances for the children of that class.

(1345)

In essence this means that under the new system children of different denominations who live in the same neighbourhood would all attend the same neighbourhood school instead of different denominational schools. However, pursuant to paragraph (a) the denominational classes that currently have rights under term 17 will continue to have the right to provide for the religious education, activities and observances for the children of that class who attend these interdenominational neighbourhood schools.

In addition to these interdenominational schools in which religious education and activities will continue, paragraph (b)(i) of the amendment reserves the right to publicly funded unidenominational schools. These unidenominational schools will be established and maintained for each denomination whose members currently have rights under the present term 17, subject to provincial legislation uniformly applicable to all schools.

Further, paragraph (c) of the proposed amendment specifically provides that where a unidenominational school is permitted the class of persons it serves shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education activities and observances. In addition they shall have the right to direct the teaching of aspects of the curriculum reflecting a religious belief, student admission policy and the assignment and dismissal of teachers in that school.

Paragraph (e) of the proposed amendment provides that denominations will still have the right to participate in school management. For example, this paragraph gives denominational classes with rights the right to elect in total not less than two-thirds of the members of a school board, with this total to be proportionately divided among classes in each school board's jurisdiction.

It is clear, therefore, the amendment does not do away with religious education in the classroom. Religious education will remain a significant feature of the Newfoundland school system.

Another concern has been raised that the proposed amendment to term 17 is a case in which minority rights are being taken away by the majority. Once again, this is not the case. As the Minister of Justice has already indicated, this is not an instance in which minority rights are being adversely affected by the majority.

In this respect it is important to understand that there is no majority denomination in Newfoundland. Instead, term 17 constitutionally entrenches denominational rights for seven different denominations. Thus, unlike every other province, all publicly funded schools in Newfoundland are denominational. As a result term 17 is unlike constitutional provisions relating to education for

the other provinces, for term 17 guarantees rights to several different minority groups which together comprise over 95 per cent of the province's population.

In short, unlike the other provinces, there is no majority denomination in Newfoundland. This means each of the seven denominations is affected equally by the proposed change and no minorities are being singled out for discriminatory treatment. This is an important factor which distinguishes Newfoundland from other provinces and must be taken into account when considering the proposed amendment.

Another concern is the proposed amendment to term 17 will diminish minority rights in other provinces or set a legal precedent for the removal of such rights. Once again, it is important to note this is not so. To begin with, the amendments will apply only in Newfoundland and Labrador. This means the amendment will not affect rights in other province whether they are official language minority rights or denominational school rights.

For example, French language, minority language education rights are protected by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and nothing in this amendment will diminish that protection. Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not in any way affect the constitutionally protected rights of aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal and treaty rights are constitutionally protected by section 25 of the charter and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Nothing in this amendment will diminish that protection.

(1350)

The government takes both its role and its responsibilities in the constitutional amending process very seriously. The government has carefully considered the proposed amendment and has decided that on its merits it deserves to be adopted by the House.

As a result, I encourage members of the House to join with me in voting in favour of this resolution.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion in regard to the referendum held in Newfoundland because a majority of Newfoundlanders voted in favour of this change. Also because the motion does not violate the rights of minorities, since a majority of Newfoundlanders voted on an issue concerning all religious denominations that have schools in the province. What this means essentially is that a majority of people have given themselves the right to make changes in the education system that will benefit Newfoundland, since the province will save some $7 million by having only one school system instead of four, and by having only four school boards, instead of 27.

As regards religious rights, the hon. member for Central Nova rightly pointed out that the rights of religious denominations will not be violated, on the contrary. Following the change made through term 17, religious denominations will be able to exercise their religious rights in any school, the only difference being that the schools will be multiconfessional, instead of having religious groups controlling them.

I personally feel that the control of schools by the Church is a thing of the past. It is time for schools to be under secular control, thus allowing the various religious communities to fulfil their role and teach religion.

In this regard the proposed change to the motion concerning schools in Newfoundland is a good one. Some members alluded to section 93 of the Canadian constitution, which is supposed to protect denominational rights throughout the country.

Let me do a brief historical outline. Madam Speaker, section 93 was not complied with by your province. In New Brunswick, all French speaking schools were abolished in 1871, because the province had not complied with section 93, a situation which was corrected almost a century later. The same happened in most Canadian provinces, including Manitoba and Ontario. At the turn of the century, not complying with section 93 was the way used to abolish the rights of the French speaking minority.

Today, when we talk about the Canadian Constitution, we are told: ``We respect the Constitution, we respect section 93''. This was not always the case.

What hurts about this motion is that Newfoundland again is not complying with the Canadian constitution. This time it is not in regard to section 93, but section 23 of the 1982 charter. This is a very recent provision; it dates back only 14 years. Newfoundland is among those Canadian provinces that do not comply with the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of a bilingual Canada.

Newfoundland is among the four provinces that, to this day, do not comply with this modern charter, along with Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia.

(1355)

Section 23 of the Canadian charter of rights is of the utmost importance, and even essential. It is essential to the bilingual dimension of Canada, because the whole future of French speaking and Acadian minorities in Canada rests on section 23, which guarantees French speaking minorities in Canada a legal right to control their own schools. I repeat that four provinces in Canada still do not comply with this section of the Canadian Constitution, Newfoundland being one of them.

Obviously, this is not directly linked to term 17 before us today. Section 23 of the charter is quite distinct, but the fact of the matter is they are related. When one considers term 17, one wonders about Mr. Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland, also known as Captain Canada. Is he going to abide by the Canadian Constitution

and grant French speaking citizens of his province the right and the power to control their school boards. This is a matter for concern, because in the past Newfoundland did notre really demonstrate a great deal of good faith in this matter. British Columbia and a few other provinces are no better.

The charter was enacted in 1982. A judgment by the Supreme Court of Alberta has clarified section 23. It said that French speaking minorities in Canada have the right to control their school boards. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land. In 1990, the Supreme Court confirmed that, under section 23, French speaking Canadians have the right to manage their own schools.

But not a word was heard from Newfoundland. This is an opportunity for Brian Tobin, Captain Canada, to grant French speaking citizens in his province the right to control their own schools, which he has not done yet. I will explain later that the past is probably an indication of what the future holds. The same thing happened with his predecessor, Mr. Wells, who made all kinds of promises but never delivered.

The worst of it all is that the Prime Minister, who claims to be the champion of French speaking Canadians' rights, did not say a word about this issue. He did not say to Brian Tobin: ``Listen, Brian, let us make a deal. I will enact term 17, but you are going to comply with section 23 of the Constitution''. This is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Speaker: Dear colleague, you have ten minutes remaining. If you wish, you may continue after question period, but as it will soon be 2.00 p.m., we will now proceed to members' statements.

_____________________________________________