[English]
The Deputy Speaker: This motion is not debatable.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are being asked to vote shortly on a ways and means motion that just arrived in our offices at 11.45 today. My understanding is that when a motion or a bill is tabled it is available to members for study presumably for eventual vote and debate. This is some 350 pages. It arrived on our desks 20 minutes ago and we are being asked to vote on it. There is not a single member in this House who has even looked at it let alone read it.
It seems to be highly irregular that members of Parliament are being asked to vote on a comprehensive tax bill-
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kamloops would know that this is not a point of order. In fact the Order Paper indicates that the matter was tabled on Wednesday, November 20.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that there is agreement with the whips of the official opposition and the Reform Party that the votes on the ways and means motions be deferred until 1.15 p.m. with a 15-minute bell. Over and above ways and means Motions Nos. 10 and 12, we would also deal with the votes on third reading of Bill C-29 which originally had been deferred until later this day. They will also take place at 1.15 this afternoon.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the whip of the official opposition in agreement with this proposal?
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement, and wish to express our most sincere appreciation to the other parties for their co-operation, given the circumstances.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have had consultations and that is fine with the Reform Party. There will be a bell at 1.15 and we will do it all at 1.30.
The Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order 45(7), this request is acceptable and the divisions on the specific matters are deferred until 1.30 p.m.
(1210 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), the division on the motion is deferred until 1.15 p.m.
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.SCHEDULE
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
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. 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 of persons 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 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 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 in total not less than two thirds of the 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 that class in the area under the board's jurisdiction.''Citation
2. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, year of proclamation (Newfoundland Act).(1215 )
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to this resolution. I spoke on it in June when the House first dealt with it but since then the Senate has had some time dealing with it and now it is back here for us to deal with one more time as provided for in the Constitution.
Perhaps I may mention something of my own personal educational background to show how I come at this particular issue.
Mr. Strahl: Are you with us or against us, Roger?
Mr. Simmons: I am always with the member for Fraser Valley East when he is advocating sensible things. I believe on this one he is advocating something very sensible.
I was raised in the Salvation Army, so I completed my high school education in a so-called church school, a Salvation Army school. I spent a number of years teaching. Half my teaching career was in a Salvation Army school and in two communities, one in northern Newfoundland called St. Anthony, the other on the northeast coast in a community called Springdale. I spent about the same amount of time teaching in the so-called amalgamated or integrated schools, those schools in which a number of the religious denominations including the Salvation Army had come together for educational purposes.
I spent three years as a clergyman with the Salvation Army. I spent a couple of years as president of the provincial Newfoundland Teacher's Association. I mention that in the context that we had a number of dealings in those days with changes to legislation including the 1969 Schools Act, for example, which legislated during the period of my presidency of the teacher's association.
Both in terms of my own education and in terms of my own career path I have had fairly close involvement with the subject that we are dealing with here today.
I, like just about every other Newfoundlander, have a particular perspective on it. We are not clones. We have different perspectives. We had a referendum on the issue a couple of years ago. It triggered some pretty strong views on either side of the issue. I will come to that in a moment.
Let us refresh ourselves on what is the background of this particular resolution, and why it is before us now. First, it is before us now for the same reason that it was before us last June. It was because the Parliament of Canada has a role in responding to requests from particular provinces having to do with changes to the Constitution that affect only that province or those provinces making the request. This particular amendment falls in that category.
As many will be aware, a whole lot of activity, planning and involvement has preceded the arrival of the resolution, the proposed amendment, on the floor of this Chamber last June and again today.
The genesis of this proposed change is that for many years the Newfoundland education system has been seeking better ways, not only more efficient ways in dollar terms, but more effective ways to pursue its educational objectives while at the same time ensuring the very values that have been part of the system and that have made the system such a success over the years because, despite the financial constraints, the so-called church system of education in Newfoundland has served us very well for many years.
Were there time I would take members back and tell them how we got into this rather unique system in the first place. It had to do with the way that Newfoundland was settled. It had to do with the early laws that prevented settlement. Settlement was illegal in Newfoundland until 1824. If there was no legal settlement there was no, at least in technical terms, need for a government. It was all done by fiat from Westminster. What education there was was provided by the churches in the absence of a state controlled system, because there was no state, except in the context of being a colony of Great Britain and a reluctant colony at that particular time; reluctant in the context that we were not supposed to be there.
(1220)
The churches became involved and performed a very pivotal, crucial role in the early days of education in Newfoundland, such that when government decided in the late 1800s that it was time to formalize the education institution in Newfoundland it was an easy step to look to those who had been providing the service over the years, the churches, and ask them to carry on. That is exactly what was done.
As a result of the first education act in the late 1800s a partnership was developed. Put in simplest terms, the taxpayer would pay the bill, the state would pay the bill, and churches would run the schools. We did not have five, six or seven church schools in the sense that there are in the province of Ontario or in certain other jurisdictions in Manitoba and so on. We had, operating side by side, seven state funded school systems. Each got its money from the state and its leadership from the church. That system evolved over the years and served us very well.
As I said a moment ago, I am a product of that system both in having graduated from it and in having worked in it as a teacher and a school administrator. Were there time I could talk for hours on the many advantages and the many good things of the system. It is a very good system. We need to preserve the best of it while at the same time do our best to get rid of that which impedes progress in the system.
I want the House to understand the two things I have said. We have to find ways to reform the system. That was the resolve of the Newfoundland people when this exercise had its beginnings. We have to find ways to help the system progress, but not at the expense of the values which are implicit in the system.
I believe the Newfoundland government found a way to do that. Having tentatively found that way, it did not just arbitrarily bull through with it and force it down people's throats. It looked to the people of Newfoundland in a referendum in September of last year and asked the people of Newfoundland what they thought of the proposed changes, what they thought of the proposal to seek a constitutional amendment to enable the changes to go forward. Fifty-five per cent of the people who participated in the referendum gave the government and the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador the green light or the authority to proceed with the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
That was in September of last year. That was one vote of the people directly involved. It was one vote which said: ``Let us get on with it. Let us do it''.
Of course there was at that time a vote of the Newfoundland House of Assembly which said the same thing. It was a vote of the elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
There was a more recent vote which was held last May in the Newfoundland House of Assembly. That vote was unanimous. All members of all parties in that House, Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic, voted unanimously to call on this House to expedite the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The leader of the opposition, a Conservative, Mr. Loyola Sullivan, in Newfoundland, voted in that particular amendment. He, like all other members of the House, called on this Parliament to expedite the proposed change to the Constitution.
(1225)
Then of course in June here in this Chamber we, the representatives of the people of Canada, including the seven members from Newfoundland and Labrador, also participated in a vote. By a majority, the House has given its approbation to the proposed amendment.
Even before we take a vote on the resolution now before the House, there have already been four votes on this issue: the referendum in Newfoundland, the two votes in the Newfoundland House of Assembly and a vote in this Chamber in June.
Of course, my critics will remind me that there was a fifth vote as well on this issue. There was a fifth vote last Thursday in the Senate, although not quite on this resolution. But in fairness, I believe I should deal with it briefly.
There was a fifth vote on this subject and some people, well meaning, in the other place had more of an eye on politics than on the issues at hand. If we look at the breakdown of the vote, there were four Liberal Senators who voted for the Senate amendment. But with that exception, there was a straight split along Liberal and Tory lines in the Senate in which all the Tories wanted to do something different from what the Newfoundland people were asked in the referendum and what the Newfoundland House has asked in its two motions and that we had asked in the June vote here. All the Tories voted to oppose the will of the Newfoundland people in the referendum and oppose the will of the Newfoundland House of Assembly in its two votes.
All the Liberals, save four, voted to uphold what this Chamber had already done and what had been done in the referendum and in the Newfoundland House.
It can be argued that in the other place it was largely a vote along partisan lines. I would submit, having been around this business for a while, that politics probably fueled as much of the argument over there as did any concern for other issues.
However, not to be unduly unkind at the beginning of this new week, let us recognize that part of the argument which was put over in the other place had to do with the concern of minority rights. The Senate spent a fair amount of time on this and, indeed, its amendment stated ``where numbers warrant''.
It is interesting that the Senate had chosen those very words, but it was no accident. First it comes straight from the minority language context. Those are also the very words that the Newfoundland House of Assembly had initially considered. This was part of the original proposal that the Newfoundland government was going to bring to us.
I am told, having followed this one very closely, that it was decided by the Newfoundland government that the phrase ``where numbers warrant'', while pretty innocuous and helpful on the surface, was rejected as a viable option primarily because of the potential legal interpretation of the phrase.
The intention here is not to give special treatment to anybody, not to people who have uni-denominational schools or any other kind of school. The intention of this amendment is to treat all denominational schools in exactly the same way. Consequently the right to a unidenominational school was made ``subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools, specifying conditions for the establishment of continued operation of schools''. That is a quote directly from the resolution now before the House.
(1230)
The clause I have just read authorizes the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to set the standard for establishing and maintaining the school. However, it requires that the same standard be applied to all schools, whether interdenominational or unidenominational. In effect, the government is prevented by this
clause from setting a higher or different standard for unidenominational schools than would apply to other publicly funded schools.
That last sentence is at the very crux of the issue that was dealt with in the Senate. I have mentioned I have a few suspicions but if we put aside the partisan hanky-panky that might have gone on over there in the name of this resolution, in the name of minority rights, and recognize that there were people in the Senate and people at large in Newfoundland and across Canada who say when they heard about this proposed amendment to term 17: ``What does this have to do with minority rights? Is there an implication for minority rights in other parts of the country?''
To them I say that the amendment to the resolution in the Senate, the ``where numbers warrant amendment,'' would have played into the hands of their concern. It would have set a different standard. It would have obliged the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to apply a different standard, a lower standard to unidenominational schools than to the multidenominational schools. That is exactly what the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to avoid. It is why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador elected not to put ``where numbers warrant'' in its request for a change.
Let me reiterate the sentence I read a moment ago. In effect, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is prevented from setting a higher or a different standard for unidenominational schools than would apply to other publics funded schools. Prohibiting the government from setting a different standard is only there as long as we stick with the wording before us. The introduction of the words ``where numbers warrant'' is a licence to a government at some future time to apply different standards to unidenominational schools than to multidenominational schools.
I said earlier that this debate as it unfolded in Newfoundland caused a fair amount of confrontation, division and some rancour. Some of that rancour is the inevitable result of the dramatic change being proposed. There are always those who are most comfortable with the status quo. To a degree I am one of those people because I have never felt that you should change for the sake of changing. But if change offers the prospect of something better then it is worth considering abandoning the status quo.
However, whenever the status quo is tampered with, some rancour, some suspicion is triggered. Therefore, it is no surprise that something as integral to the Newfoundland way of life as the school system would trigger that kind of apprehension, indeed that kind of rancour. Unfortunately the rancour was cranked up somewhat by a bit of misinformation. No matter what the debate, someone has a vested interest. There is always somebody who says: ``I do not really trust the judgment of people on this, so I have to do some fear mongering on it''.
(1235)
We had a fair amount of rhetoric in Newfoundland about godless schools and that kind of thing. I invite critics to look at this
proposal and they will find that it does two things only. It puts the governance of the school system in Newfoundland where it already is in every other jurisdiction in Canada. Into the hands of the government.
Second, and most important, it continues and enshrines even further the role of the churches in so far as religious education is concerned in Newfoundland. The role of the churches will continue and will be constitutionally protected by this amendment.
I think I told the House this before but if not let us get it on the record. In the referendum in September last year I voted no, not because I opposed the changes being proposed and not because I had concerns about minority rights, although I had some questions there at the time and I will come to these in a moment. I voted no for a couple of reasons. First, I felt that a proper opportunity had not been given to resolve the issues of difference between the government and the church leaders outside the constitutional context. I felt that the government appeared to be rushing to judgment on this one and more time was needed to seek an accommodation outside the constitutional context in which we are now operating.
The result of the referendum and the resolution in the Newfoundland House of Assembly triggered a whole set of initiatives for both sides to try to get together one last time. After the referendum and after the first vote in the Newfoundland House of Assembly it was that exercise and the result of that exercise which turned out to be an abysmal failure.
It was a failure of that latter exercise which told me that whatever my concerns were earlier, it was clear that no amount of knocking heads together was going to solve the issue. The only route left was the route that the government of Newfoundland had chosen to go, the route we are participating in and the route we are now on today.
I initially had some concerns about the minority rights situation until I realized that this is a minority rights situation only in the semantic context. The right we are dealing with here is the same right for every living, breathing Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Absolutely the same one.
Second, the accommodation that has been made in this proposal will see to it that those rights continue to be protected. In matters relating to the religious content of the curriculum in Newfoundland the churches will have full say.
(1240)
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the criticism was in those days in Newfoundland, if you had been following the local media in Newfoundland? I do not mean in the last week but in the last few
months. It is from those who want to get on with educational reform. The criticism was that the government in its latest negotiations was giving more say to the churches than they had before. I do not subscribe to that but I am saying that is a criticism that is much in print. It has been said many times by proponents of the reform in the past few months.
As a Newfoundlander, as an educator, as a person who got part of his schooling and spent part of his teaching years in a unidenominational school in Newfoundland I can say that I am extremely comfortable with the route we are on here.
I want to mention one more thing before I sit down. It has to do with the role of the Senate. I have seen some effort in recent days for people to bring on board other agenda items here, to talk about this appointed Senate and that kind of thing. I have my views on the Senate. I think the sooner we can find a way to elect it the better. But that aside, the Senate has a role in this. I have never felt its members were outside their bounds in dealing with this issue.
The Senate has served the overall process very well with their hearings, with their proposed amendment. The whole process held it up to the light of day just a little bit more. I hope one of the things it has done is to convince the people of Canada, those who have been watching or following, of something of which I am convinced. This is not a minority rights issue. It is not an issue that affects anybody outside of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Those who get on that tack and begin advocating this as a human rights issue should be careful of the precedent they are setting. What they are saying in effect is, notwithstanding what section 43 says in the Constitution, we can never have an issue that affects only one jurisdiction, in this case one province. It can never have dealt with and processed here because we have to be always cognizant, always held under the threat of how it might be perceived in some other jurisdiction.
Newfoundland and Labrador has the full right to seek a constitutional change. The Parliament of Canada has the full responsibility to respond to that request, to scrutinize it. Lord knows we have scrutinized it, here last June, all this fall in the Senate and back here again. It has been well scrutinized. That is the process.
At the end of the day the request came only from the jurisdiction concerned. However, it came with the strength of a referendum and with the strength of two resolutions in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has certainly kept up its part of bargain as provided for in section 43. I think we have too. We dealt with it for the first time last June, in the Senate subsequently, the Senate hearings, the Senate amendment, and now here.
I believe the time has come to get on with the vote. I hope we can do it expeditiously because we are dealing with the education of
some young people whose education has been in limbo somewhat because of the way this process has been dragged out.
I felt from the beginning it would take some time. Nobody can argue that it has been rushed through. We have had a good run at it. There can be nobody left in the country, certainly in Newfoundland and Labrador, whose rights are involved here, who does not know about this initiative and who has not taken sides on this initiative. I can say that I still get mail from people in Newfoundland who tell me they feel it is a minority rights issue. I get mail from people who are concerned that the role of the church is being minimized here. I respect those views. Some are from my constituents and some from other across the province. I respect those views very much.
(1245)
At the end of the day I have to make a judgment. I believe I have made the right judgment on this one, that the overall process will be best served if we get on with the amendment to the Constitution.
I am satisfied that the values which have served the Newfoundland education system so well are being adequately protected here. If they were not, I would not be making the speech I am making today because, as I said before, I have been intimately a part of that system and I am proud of what it has been able to do in terms of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would not want to see it watered down or interfered with.
I believe this amendment, far from interfering with it, allows it to proceed in an effective manner. It is for those reasons that I take great pleasure in supporting the resolution before the House.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of resolution 17. I do so as the intergovernmental affairs critic for my party.
I enjoyed hearing from the member for Burin-St. George's. I have always had a great deal of respect and admiration for him. I must say that after listening to his presentation that has grown when I heard him talking about the status quo and that it is not always the best way to go and he certainly supports referendums, something this party feels very strongly about.
I think I even heard his support for an elected Senate. Indeed, the comments that came from the other side I wholeheartedly endorse. We may want him to come over to our side.
I am pleased to speak in support of this. I regret that we are debating this again. I do regret that those in the other place, the unelected, have ignored the true democratic judgment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It seems as though the common
sense of the common people has been ignored. That is something the Reform Party very much believes in.
Before I get into our position on that, I think it would be appropriate to review the process that has brought us to this point. This is not some knee-jerk reaction that is taking place. It actually goes back to 1992 when there was a royal commission that looked at the problem of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. The recommendation was that it needed to be changed and the change was the subject of three years of negotiations in that province. Unfortunately, the negotiations with the government and the churches failed to bring about an agreement on the changes, but basically everyone agreed there had to be changes made.
The resolution we are talking about today and which we talked about in June was voted on a passed in the Newfoundland House of Assembly in a free vote of a clear majority. Then the referendum was held. I should mention that the referendum was not required by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is to its credit that a referendum was held on a major change such as this to the Constitution. We applaud the fact that the referendum was held.
The referendum passed by a clear majority of 55 per cent, which clearly indicated agreement to the changes proposed by the government to term 17.
After the referendum passed in October 1995 the Newfoundland House of Assembly adopted the resolution and all parties supported it.
There was a provincial election in Newfoundland and Labrador in February 1996, and of course reform was an issue in the election because the referendum had been held and of the 52 seats contested, 36 of those seeking election supported the referendum. Once again in a provincial election there was overwhelming support for reform. Then, of course, back in June of this year we in this House overwhelmingly endorsed the change by 170 to 46 on what was a free vote.
(1250)
That is the background leading up to what I would certainly argue has been a very fair and open democratic process where the will of the people has been heard and accepted.
Certainly in coming to this place we have a role to play. In my view, we had three things we had to address. The first was the consideration of the democratic consent. The second consideration was that it conform to the national standards of the rights and freedoms of our citizens. The third was the consideration of the minority rights in other provinces, that they were not going to be impacted.
Dealing first with the consideration of the democratic consent, I think I have just outlined the process that was followed, starting with the royal commission in 1992 which brought us to the point where we are at today, clearly indicating that the democratic consent was solicited and indeed achieved.
The second point is on national standards of rights and freedoms. In my interpretation in review of this bill, the rights and freedoms of the churches and citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador are not impacted in any way. Their rights and freedoms are actually more enhanced than they were under the bill because of the new changes.
On the third point, considering the impact of minority rights in other provinces, term 17 refers only to the people of the one province and in fact does on impact on any of the other provinces.
As I mentioned, minority rights have been actually enhanced because prior to this resolution 5 per cent of the people in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador had no rights under term 17. When we talk about minority rights, this bill actually enhances the rights of all the citizens. That is really what this bill is about, equality. There is no longer going to be special status based on religion. Everyone will be treated equally. I find it difficult that anyone could argue against that concept.
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province that has exclusive denominational schools. Therefore Newfoundland will join all the other provinces by being free in that area.
This bill is not about minority rights. It is about bettering and improving the quality of education in that province. It is about streamlining the system and putting more money into the classrooms and taking it out of the bureaucracy. It is projected to be a savings of some $25 million, which is significant. In a province that needs to improve its education and do a better job, that is absolutely a move in the right direction.
There has been some comment about the fact that the question was perhaps not as clear as it might have been. I have read the question and I do not know how it could be made any clearer. In attempting to make it as some might describe as too clear, one could be accused of oversimplifying it. It is important that the question be understood and in my view it was a very clear question.
We do a disservice to the common sense of the common people when we suggest they could not understand what was in the text. People do understand and to a far greater degree than some members of this House and certainly many members from the other place.
We understand as Reformers that this is a sensitive and controversial issue. My leader made it clear on the first vote that it would be a free vote by my party and we continue to feel that way. However, the majority of the Reform caucus supports the government on this term 17 amendment. We believe it is a move in the right direction and a move away from the status quo. It is
respecting the democratic wishes as expressed by referendum of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be supporting it.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last June this House held a two day debate on the amendment to term 17 proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and referred to the Parliament of Canada for sanction according to the Canadian Constitution.
(1255 )
The amendment to term 17 was approved by a significant majority of this House in a free vote and submitted to the Senate for adoption. The Senate has now returned the proposed term 17 amendment to us, modified by a Senate amendment providing two measures to which I will refer later. The Senate amendment was adopted by a significant majority of senators in a free vote.
Last summer when I spoke on this issue I was one of 36 Liberal members who voted against the adoption of the proposed amendment to term 17. The reasons I gave then are, in my considered view, still valid today. These are my reasons.
There is a broad consensus for the need for reform of the educational system in Newfoundland and Labrador and, to my knowledge, no parliamentarian opposes this worthy objective.
However, many parliamentarians have strong reservations that, worthy as the objective may be, the amendment should not interfere with the rights of certain minority groups and certain groups now protected by the Constitution under the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
Those of us who hold these reservations believe that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had two alternative options available to reach the objective it seeks while protecting the existing rights of defined educational groups under the Constitution.
First, it could have persevered with a framework agreement that it was negotiating with the various stakeholders and which was close to a consensus last spring, according to the words on April 24, 1996 of no less than Newfoundland's minister of education, Mr. Grimes.
The second option, if it preferred, as it eventually chose to do, to move on the constitutional front would have been to propose an amendment to term 17 which would have at the same time made clear and watertight the protection of existing rights under the projected reform.
However, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador chose to go forward with an amendment which would give complete power to itself to modify the present educational system regardless of the protected rights of religious groups under the Constitution.
Those who believe that the House should simply accede to the amendment proposed by the Government of Newfoundland hold that the decision of the Government of Newfoundland was a democratic choice, sanctioned by a majority vote in a public referendum.
Many of my colleagues who support the amendment proposed by Newfoundland feel that it is presumptuous and arrogant of us in this House to interfere with a democratic decision of a legitimate government seeking its own reforms.
I respectfully submit that this argument is not justified. If the modern fathers of confederation presiding over the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada had viewed educational reform as strictly a matter for the provincial Government of Newfoundland to decide, they would not have enshrined clear and unequivocal protections for certain religious groups related to education in the terms of union.
Having done this, those who crafted the terms of union obviously agreed and decided that term 17 went beyond the power and authority of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is why we in this House have become involved. Being involved, according to the clear designs of the authors of the terms of union and of term 17, we have the duty as members of Parliament, indeed an onerous duty, to examine any changes with special care. If in doing so our conclusion is that the amendment proposed by the Government of Newfoundland eliminates the constitutional protections that the authors of the terms of union deliberately intended to enshrine, then it behoves us to either reject the proposed amendment or modify it so as to continue the protections intended for certain educational groups by the Constitution.
(1300 )
In a recent free vote the Senate adopted an amendment that provides for two modifications to Newfoundland's proposed amendment to term 17. It would affirm both the spirit and intended protection of the original term 17. The first part of this amendment is the insertion of the words ``where numbers warrant'' and the present paragraph (b) which starts with the words ``subject to provincial legislation''.
This is an important change. If the authority for changing the protection of certain educational groups under the Constitution is left to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, why should the same not be done in the cases of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec or any other province where certain educational rights are now protected by the Canadian Constitution?
Today we have a certain type of government in Newfoundland. Colleagues here may feel very comfortable leaving this authority with the present Government of Newfoundland. But what government will it be tomorrow? What will be the design of the future government 25 years hence? This is why the fathers of the Constitution, when dealing with matters as sensitive as education,
educational rights, protection of minority rights, protection of religious groups, made it so that these rights were deliberately enshrined in the Constitution to make it much more difficult for any provincial government to change at will the educational system. Maybe a government more daring than others, more autocratic than others could eliminate these very protections, these minority rights like religious rights for certain educational groups just by its own will with perhaps a tiny majority in the House.
The second amendment intends to substitute the words ``to direct'' with the words ``to determine and direct''. This puts a far greater onus on the Government of Newfoundland to determine before directing any changes involving substantial reform that they are warranted.
I suggest that in both cases these amendments make eminent sense. They do not detract from the thrust of the term 17 amendment. In other words, the worthy objective or reform the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is seeking is continuing in a reasonable manner the protection of the educational groups enshrined under the terms of union.
[Translation]
I am particularly interested in the question of constitutional protection. As a matter of fact, this same question of the constitutional provisions on education is undergoing a thorough and ongoing scrutiny at this very moment in Quebec.
The recent general assembly on education recommended that all religious education in Quebec, which is essentially linked to the protection of minority rights in Quebec, be abolished. A consensus is gradually developing in Quebec around dividing school boards by language. What will the present government of Quebec decide eventually, since we all know that it is opposed to any interference by the Canadian Parliament in its affairs?
It is not mere coincidence that the Bloc Quebecois voted unanimously in favour of the amendment proposed by Newfoundland. The Bloc's argument is that, since the Government of Newfoundland has made a democratic choice, it is not the business of us here in the Canadian Parliament to interfere. The Bloc is already paving the way for the possibility of the Quebec government's referring to us some proposal for an amendment to the protection of education in Quebec, at which time it would suit both the Bloc and the PQ government if we were to accept it without a murmur.
Certainly, if ever there were an amendment to the constitutional provisions on education, and if this included sufficient protection for minorities, I would be the first to accept it. But if it did not, I consider that it is the duty of all parliamentarians to oppose it vigorously.
(1305)
[English]
Some of my colleagues have stated that the amendment to term 17 has nothing to do with minority rights. Many colleagues have expressed the fact that it is going beyond our duty to interfere with the rights of the people of Newfoundland, the Government of Newfoundland, to decide its own thrust, its own objective of reform. I do not think this is what we are doing. I certainly do not think this is what I have in mind.
I really believe that this question is essentially linked to minority rights. I truly believe that if we were to accept, to rubber stamp any constitutional change proposed by any provincial government without expressing our opinion, without expressing dissent if this is what we feel should be the case, then what is the point of constitutional enshrinement in the first place?
After all, the Constitution today, whether we like it or not, provides that the Parliament of Canada, this House and the Senate, should examine any constitutional change. The reason for it is patently obvious.
I suggest that this question is far bigger than that of the authority of any provincial legislature to decide by itself. This is why we are involved. This is why I continue to believe that in assenting unchanged to the amendment to term 17 as proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador we would be doing a disservice to all those who believe that constitutional enshrinement in Quebec, in Ontario, in Manitoba and elsewhere are really the finest guarantees we have for minority rights.
These minority rights express themselves in different ways. Sometimes, as happens in Quebec, they are tied up through the Constitution through religious enshrinement. There has been an evolution in mores, an evolution in our societal realities which makes it so today that religion is not the key issue any more in our schools. But the fact of religious enshrinement in Quebec is tied up closely to minority rights in Quebec. Were we to accept this amendment today without any argument, by rubber stamping it, no doubt that our friends of the Bloc will rejoice once again when they prepare their own proposition for us one day to put before this House, hoping that again we would rubber stamp it.
I continue to hold that we should look at the amendment to term 17 very carefully, that we should back the amendments made in the Senate and that we should move in that direction which is a fair compromise to the Government in Newfoundland and Labrador and all those who hold, as we all do, for educational reform in that province. We should keep the thrust of the amendment to term 17
while keeping the protection of religious groups enshrined in the terms of the union.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again talk on term 17.
I would like go back to my colleague for Burin-St. George's who spoke in the House earlier today. He made the assertion that any difference of opinion on term 17 was driven by partisan interest. I want to assure my friend that he is someone I continue to hold in high respect and regard. He has been a tremendous supporter of mine over the last nine years. However, I believe that the member is really not accurate when he states that our motives for being involved and having a point of view on this issue are not grounded in the best of intentions.
(1310)
Back in June when this resolution was debated, certain members of the House opposed the constitutional amendment that was before the House. We were very sensitive to the fact but we recognized that the educational system in Newfoundland needed reform and modernization. No attempt was made to interfere with the management of the educational system.
Having said that, a constitutional amendment cannot be put to the House without some examination, without some discussion and debate. If we feel that there are some genuine concerns, as the member for Lincoln has so eloquently expressed, then it is our duty and responsibility to stand in the House and flag these concerns and put them forward to the House. Ultimately precedents that are set in this Chamber on constitutional amendments will have a profound effect for other provinces in the country.
As the member for Lincoln has just said, he has deep concerns about the fact that the reasons for the Bloc supporting this en masse last June were that they were setting the terrain under a referendum condition where if they were looking for constitutional amendment that the amendment in Newfoundland would be a terrific precedent. How can we rubber stamp something in Newfoundland and have a difference in Quebec?
There is something else that is really important of which members of the House and the people of Canada should be aware and that is what has happened in the Senate over the last four months. Without exception most bills that the House of Commons has put to the Senate have been supported in a timely fashion, in a constructive way. We could count on our hands the number of bills which have come back to the House for amendment over the last three years.
There has to be some concern, some heads up, when we have an amendment to term 17 that is supported by a majority of the Senators. When the speeches that were given on this issue in the Senate are analysed, it is interesting to read some of the remarks that some of the Senators who have great constitutional experience and credibility have tabled in the other chamber.
I would like to refer specifically to Senator Kirby who gave a speech in the other chamber on November 7. It is important when members read Senator Kirby's remarks that they realize the experience and background of this Senator. This Senator was the most senior public servant constitutional adviser for the then minister of justice who campaigned coast to coast, and even in Westminster, for the repatriation of the Constitution.
This is the Senator, who was the most senior adviser, who spent literally thousands and thousands of hours along with expert lawyers from the Department of Justice and other expert lawyers across Canada to make sure that the Constitution was crafted in a way that would ultimately be accepted by this chamber. Having Senator Kirby weigh in on this issue so profoundly is something this Chamber cannot ignore. His experience, respect and sensitivity were brought to bear on this issue such that the entire membership of the other Chamber gave him extended time so that his remarks could be fully recorded.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, but it being 1.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 10 under ways and means proceedings.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The vote is on concurrence in ways and means Motion No. 10.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan-123
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -82
(1340 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion carried.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on ways and means Motion No. 12.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I propose that there would be unanimous consent that we apply the results of the previous vote taken on ways and means Motion No. 10 to ways and means Motion No. 12.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, two members of our caucus who were not present for the last vote, the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, would like to be counted with the Reform Party on the next vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it agreed, subject to the terms of the whip of the Reform Party?
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will vote no, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sorry, but I did not hear what the official opposition whip said. Could she please repeat what she said?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Official opposition members will vote no on the motion before the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden on a point of order.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of Commons how the NDP are going to vote on this matter. Are we voting, Mr. Speaker, or are we just discussing points of order?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The chief government whip suggested that the vote taken on the previous motion be applied to this motion. I understood there was unanimous consent for that, subject to the addition of two names from the Reform Party.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan-123
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, you did not take the vote with respect to the NDP caucus and with respect to ways and means Motion No. 12, New Democratic Party members in this House vote no on the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden will know that was the effect of the consent that was given in the application of the vote, because I believe his party voted no on Motion No. 10 as well.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unless I am mistaken, you asked for the approval of the House, but the government whip did not say which way the government was going to vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Just to clarify the position for the House, the chief government whip asked that the vote taken on Motion No. 10, which was the first vote, be applied to the second vote. I sought the consent of the House to make that application. Two names were added by the Reform whip and subject to that, I thought there was House agreement that it be done and I declared the motion carried. That is why there was not an indication as to how the government would be voting. It was clear from the proposal which the chief government whip put to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now proceed to the recorded division on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Sauvageau at the third reading stage of Bill C-29.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Official opposition members will vote yes, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present are voting yea, with the addition of the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. He is in on this vote as well.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members of Parliament present vote no on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): No, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
(1350 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
The next question is on the amendment.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I will try one more time for unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the subamendment to the vote presently before the House which is on the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the terms of the proposal of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 192.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, official opposition members will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members in the House of Commons today vote yes on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I will vote yes, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan-125
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -82
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I realize that I will probably only have three or four minutes before question period after which I will resume my debate.
(1355 )
Before the taking of the votes I said that we had a responsibility to look at the work of Senator Kirby who took part in the debate on the proposed amendment to term 17 in the other House. We on this side of the House should show some respect for the remarks that he made in the other House on term 17.
As I mentioned earlier our Liberal government put almost total trust in him when we were developing the campaign to repatriate the Constitution. It would be abnormal for us to dismiss his remarks just because subsequent to his career as a public servant advising the government we put him in the Senate. To think that just because a person has been appointed to the Senate he loses his ability to judge and be fair does not make sense in my view.
As I mentioned earlier, the Senate with unanimous consent gave Senator Kirby extended time to develop his argument. I am sure many members after they read his speech and go through his remarks will realize that his motivation for proposing this amendment to term 17 is not for partisan reasons. There is no mischief here. He has had great loyalty to the Liberal Party and the government for over 20 years.
Some of the other senators who supported the amendment are highly respected constitutional lawyers.
The Speaker: My colleague, of course you will have the floor after question period when we resume debate.
[Translation]
It being almost 2 o'clock, the House will proceed to statements by members.