|
STATEMENT BY MINISTER DION ON THE
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 93 (EDUCATION)
OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
APRIL 22, 1997
Introduction
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform the
House that later today, I will be giving notice to bring this constitutional
amendment resolution before the House and to refer it to a Special Joint
Committee which will be asked to report back to Parliament.
One week ago, on April 15, 1997, the Quebec
National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a resolution for a
constitutional amendment that would end the application to Quebec of subsections
(1) to (4) of section 93 (education) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
On receiving such a proposed amendment, Members
and Senators must ask themselves three fundamental questions. First: what
amending formula is applicable to this particular case? Second: is the proposed
amendment a good thing for the citizens affected by it? And third: does this
amendment enjoy a reasonable degree of support from the citizens affected by it?
I will give the Government's answers to each of these three questions in the
case of the amendment we have received from the Quebec National Assembly.
1. Amending Formula
In the opinion of the federal government, section
93 can be amended pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section
43 deals with the provisions applicable to one or more, but not all, provinces.
The amendment can be made with the approval of the House of Commons and "chaque
province concernée" in the French version, or "each province to which
the amendment applies" in the English version, which is more specific here.
This means that the amendment will affect only Quebec, but will not change the
constitutional provisions applicable to the other provinces.
Before the constitutional amendment of 1982, it
would have been impossible to amend section 93 unless the traditional means
provided by the Constitution Act, 1867 had been used. It would have been
necessary to ask the Westminster Parliament to ratify the amendment.
The constitutional amendment passed by the
National Assembly clearly falls within the class of bilateral amendments
provided for in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The legal opinions we
have received are quite definite on that point. And that is what I told my
counterpart Jacques Brassard, Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, at
our first meeting on this matter on February 7 this year.
Since this is a bilateral amendment, it must be
debated by each of the two Parliaments. But these debates should not be
simultaneous, in order to avoid possible confusion. For each of the four
bilateral amendments made to date, the debate was held first in the province's
legislative assembly, since the initiative came from the province. And again on
this occasion, since the initiative came from the province, and in view of the
fact that it concerns one of its areas of jurisdiction -- education -- it was
necessary for the debate to take place first in the National Assembly. That
debate has just ended with a unanimous vote in favour of the proposed amendment.
The federal Parliament can now play its part. Since the Constitution requires
its assent, it must make its own decision as to the value of the proposed
amendment. Indeed, it is its duty to do so, since it represents the citizens
affected by the amendment, as does the provincial assembly. The Parliament of
Canada is also the Parliament of Quebecers. Federal institutions are also the
institutions of Quebecers.
2. The Value of the Constitutional
Amendment
The federal government believes that the proposed
constitutional amendment is a good thing, and I will now explain why. The
origins of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 predate Confederation. This
section was included in the Canadian Constitution to grant education to the
provinces and to reassure religious minorities as to their rights at the time
when the single Province of Canada was about to be divided to create the
provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The purpose of the section was to protect the
Catholic and Protestant religious minorities. Those guarantees were then
extended to other Canadian provinces.
Until the Quiet Revolution, Catholic and
Protestant Quebecers were apparently satisfied with this system based on 19th
century political and social values. However, following the report of the
provincial Commission of Inquiry on Education in 1966, there were many
discussions in Quebec on the appropriateness of a system with denominational
foundations. Like most other Western societies, Quebec society was now secular.
On the Francophone side, the present organization
of school boards makes it more difficult to integrate newcomers into Francophone
society, as provided by provincial legislation. The Anglophone community long
regarded the Protestant school boards as an institution vital to its
development. However, these school boards have never encompassed Catholic
Anglophones. On the other hand, they have accepted a growing number of children
whose language of instruction is French. As a result, there is a danger that, in
the medium term, the Anglophone community may lose control of boards that are an
increasingly inadequate reflection of their social reality and that, in any
case, cannot respond to the needs of their Catholic populations.
That is why many voices, both Francophone and
Anglophone, Catholic as well as Protestant, have been heard over the last twenty
years advocating a system based on language rather than religion. A consensus on
the need to reorganize school organization along these lines has existed in
Quebec for some time.
However, for various reasons, all previous
attempts have failed, including the proposal by Quebec's Minister of Education,
Ms. Pauline Marois, last June. The Government of Quebec then contemplated a
constitutional amendment to allow secularization of school organization.
This amendment raises the issue of religious
rights, but also, indirectly, the issue of linguistic rights, in view of the
historically close links between Protestant school boards and the Anglophone
community.
Let us look first at the religious issue. The
contemplated amendment will end application of subsections (1) to (4) of section
93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to Quebec, and will accordingly eliminate these
religious guarantees.
Although Quebecers approve of secularization of
school organization, many are attached to religious instruction. Quebec's
Minister of Education, Ms. Pauline Marois, has already indicated that schools
that so wish may retain their denominational orientation. Furthermore, the right
to religious instruction is still guaranteed by section 41 of the Quebec Charter
of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Let us now consider the language issue. The
proposed amendment would not weaken the constitutional rights of the Anglophone
minority. The Act which amended the Canadian Constitution in 1982 guaranteed
minority language educational rights for the first time, in section 23 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
While it is true that the National Assembly does
not recognize the Constitution Act, 1982, the resolution it is sending us is
preceded by a "whereas" clause which "reaffirms the established
rights of the English-speaking community of Quebec". Indeed, the Charter
was drafted at the time bearing in mind Quebec's policies on the language of
education. And the Government of Quebec does not contest its applicability. The
resolution I am tabling today is preceded by a "whereas" clause which
reaffirms that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies everywhere in
Canada.
Section 23 of the Charter provides strong
constitutional guarantees to the minority language community. Section 93
guarantees only the existence of denominational administrative structures in
Montreal and Quebec City, and the right of dissent in the rest of the province,
but it does not protect language rights. Furthermore, the control and management
of linguistic school organization are in fact guaranteed by the case law flowing
from section 23 of the Charter and not from section 93.
In the Mahe judgement (1990), the Supreme Court
ruled that section 23 "confers a right which places positive obligations on
the government to alter or develop major institutional structures." Since
that time, other judgements have confirmed the interpretation of the Mahe
decision.
It is true that the scope of the right to
instruction in the minority language provided in section 23 varies according to
the number of students involved. In the case law, however, the bar for granting
the minority the right to establish and control an administrative structure such
as a school board, or simply to participate in it, has not been set very high.
Although there were only 242 Francophone children attending a school in Edmonton
at the time of the Mahe decision (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that this
created a right for the minority to manage and control its schools through a
system for linguistic minority representation within the school boards.
It is, in a way, thanks to the constitutional
amendments of 1982 that the Government of Quebec can proceed as it is intending
to do today. It is precisely because the right to instruction in the language of
the minority and the concomitant right to administer structures are protected by
the Constitution Act, 1982 that it is possible for the Quebec government to
propose that denominational rights no longer apply within the province.
3. Support for the Proposed Amendment
It is certainly preferable that a proposed
constitutional amendment garner the support of the population in question,
including minorities if they are affected.
Not that minorities are always right. (By that
logic, we would still be under the sway of aristocrats!). But Members of
Parliament are duty bound to be guided by a favourable bias towards minorities.
This principle applies to constitutional matters in particular, for
constitutional democracies exist to protect individual rights as well as
minority rights. At least, that is the Liberal government's vision of Canada.
In the matter before us, the Government of Canada
notes the unanimous vote in the National Assembly and the existence of a
reasonably broad consensus, which includes members of all components of Quebec
society.
Some Catholics are opposed to the amendment but
their bishops do not object to it. Some groups from the Anglophone community
would have liked the National Assembly to take this opportunity to strengthen
the linguistic minority's constitutional rights. This is, to be sure, a noble
objective. The Government of Canada would welcome with open arms any province
that wanted to strengthen the rights of its linguistic minority and become an
example to the other provinces. We did not demand of the province of New
Brunswick that the other provinces adhere to official bilingualism before
agreeing to New Brunswick's request to entrench the equal status of its own two
linguistic communities in the Constitution in 1993. Our passion for equality
must never be synonymous with the lowest common denominator.
However, the fact that a constitutional amendment
does not strengthen a minority is not a sufficient reason to object to it. The
important thing is that the amendment not infringe on this minority's rights and
that it garner a reasonable level of support in the minority community.
The broader the consensus, the easier it will be
to implement the constitutional amendment under the right conditions. The
Government of Canada believes that the Parliamentary Committee it intends to
form could provide an opportunity to broaden the consensus. The important issues
raised by the amendment will be studied within a parliamentary framework, in
accordance with the democratic culture that Quebecers share with other
Canadians. A variety of experts, groups and citizens could thus be given the
opportunity to express their points of view and to listen to the responses of
their Members of Parliament.
In order to match speed with due parliamentary
procedure, this will be a Joint Committee, enabling MPs and Senators to do their
work simultaneously.
Conclusion
The Government is of the view that the proposed
constitutional amendment we have received from the National Assembly falls
within the class of bilateral amendments provided for in Section 43 of the
Constitution Act, 1982. The Government believes that this amendment should be
passed expeditiously, in accordance with parliamentary procedure, for it will
have positive consequences for Quebec society, including both of its linguistic
communities.
Quebec society has succeeded in reaching a
consensus on a constitutional issue which touches upon the vital issues of
schooling, language and religion. This demonstrates the remarkable nature of
Quebec society and the extent to which it contributes, in its way, to Canada's
greatness.
Check against delivery.
|
